Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Minister was asked—

Common Agricultural Policy

Liz Blackman: If he will make a statement on the time scale for reform of the common agricultural policy. [58041]

Mr. Ian Pearson: What progress has been made on reform of the common agricultural policy. [58048]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Agenda 2000 package was published on 16 July 1997 and the proposals were adopted by the Commission on 18 March this year. Negotiations with member states on the CAP reform proposals are currently taking place with the aim of concluding negotiations by March 1999, in accordance with the timetable laid down at the Cardiff European Council.

Liz Blackman: Reform of the CAP is necessarily a slow business, but farmers need a great deal more support. In advance of CAP reform, is my right hon. Friend in a position to announce further measures now to support British farmers?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are three things that I have to do: I have to respond to the present crisis; I have to carry the farming industry through the Agenda 2000 proposals; and then I have to engage in the broader reform agenda to make sure that there is a secure future for British agriculture. The Government have already been able to announce some measures in response to the current difficulties in the industry. I have some more measures to announce that will be a charge to the public purse. I shall be seeking to make a statement in the House on Monday or Tuesday next week.

Mr. Pearson: With the euro starting on 1 January 1999, does my right hon. Friend agree that one thing that can be done to help our hard-pressed farmers and others in the food industry in the run-up to CAP reform is to give them the option of receiving their payments in euros? What plans does he have to allow that to happen?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question, because I am pleased to be able

to announce, on behalf of the Agriculture Departments, that by autumn 2000 we shall be able to make available an option allowing payment in euros of CAP market support payments, such as export refunds and intervention payments. That will make CAP payments in euros available to a wide range of traders and to the food industry. We will be giving further thought to the possibility of extending that option to CAP direct payments to farmers. Clearly, the choice will be made by farmers; it will not be made by the Government. We hope to be able to offer the choice.

Sir Michael Spicer: What are the priorities of the Government's reform package? What will the Government do if they do not get their way?

Mr. Brown: Clearly, the negotiations have to be conducted with others, but my priority is to reshape the CAP so that it is less reliant on price supports and able to deal with the challenges marching towards it of an increasingly liberalised market. It is the Government's view that the current structures cannot endure in their present form.

Ms Sally Keeble: Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns about possible dilution of the reform proposals during the negotiation process? Will he assure the House that Britain will provide a real lead in Europe in pushing ahead with reform of the CAP so that we achieve a positive framework for farming and see an end to some of the financial pressures on consumers that have resulted from the CAP?

Mr. Brown: If the United Kingdom's reform package is adopted, there will be real savings to consumers. The UK is now able in the Council of Ministers to engage with others in driving CAP reform through. We have allies, for example, on our proposals for dairy quotas—something that the previous Government might have found it a lot harder to have.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I warmly welcome the Minister's promise to make a statement to the House on the package that he intends to introduce to ensure the long-term future of the CAP and to deal with the immediate problems of the industry. Will he tell the House the precise representations that he received from farmers' leaders at his meetings yesterday, at which the Prime Minister was present? Will the Minister be able to introduce a package of proposals that will affect the crisis that is hitting our farmers in the current year, not just next year?

Mr. Brown: The measures that I hope to be able to announce in the House on Monday or Tuesday next week are specifically targeted at the current difficulties in the industry. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that the announcement is to be made in the House; it is of such significance that, in my view, it has to be made in the House.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister will remember the comments made by the recently departed Secretary of State for Wales, that, in view of the crisis facing the livestock industry, there is a need for an exceptional response to exceptional circumstances.


Given that the Government made £85 million available last year and that, since then, the crisis has worsened and broadened into the sheep sector, will he give an assurance that the money made available now will be in excess of that?

Mr. Brown: The representations that the right hon. Gentleman makes on behalf of his constituents are such that I find them entirely reasonable, but I do not want to pre-empt my statement on Monday or Tuesday next week.

Meat Prices (Supermarkets)

Mr. Paddy Tipping: What recent discussions he has had with supermarket chains about meat prices. [58042]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): With my noble Friend Lord Donoughue, I was present when my right hon. Friend the Minister met representatives of the British Retail Consortium on 3 November. They explained some of the factors affecting the retail price of meat and we agreed a number of measures that should help UK producers.

Mr. Tipping: Given that some controversy has arisen between some producers and some supermarket chains over the fact that farmgate prices have fallen rapidly, while supermarket shelf prices have remained static, will my hon. Friend consider two possibilities: first, of commissioning some independent research to find out what is happening in the food and price chain; and, secondly and more important, of bringing producers and retailers together to promote British beef as the best buy—best on hygiene and best on animal welfare?

Mr. Rooker: On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we are doing all that we can to bring producers, suppliers and supermarkets together in a constructive way. On the first part of his question, it would be best if the House awaited the forthcoming report of the Office of Fair Trading, which follows the important report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. Last week's meeting was constructive, especially in respect of the pig sector and the commitments given by the supermarkets.

Mr. Alan Clark: The Minister and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food know perfectly well the level of the prices that farmers are getting for meat, and they know the prices that are being charged in supermarkets: there is an enormous margin. The supermarkets are operating a cartel against the consumer, and it is those same supermarkets that are funding, to an extremely large degree, the Labour party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] Naturally, I am gratified that Labour Members should feel so indignant. Can the Minister not say to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, the next time one of his sponsors calls in at No. 10, he might mention the outrage in the countryside that is caused by the enormous margin between what producers get and what retailers are charging?

Mr. Rooker: Some of the points that underlie the right hon. Gentleman's question have led to the supermarkets

feeling very unloved and have brought about some of the concessions that they made in respect of sourcing supplies in this country, sourcing pigmeat only from suppliers that meet the same welfare standards as those that will be imposed in this country on 1 January, and correctly labelling any imported meat that they bring in, so that it is fairly labelled and they do not try to sell it off—I nearly said "flog it off'—as British when it is not.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend realise that having a go at New Zealand producers, who represent only a small part of our import market, while not doing anything about the supermarkets that are really ripping off the consumer, is counter-productive? What we need is a sensible agreement that does not bankrupt British farmers or those who supply us with good-quality produce; and, at the same time, we must ensure that some members of the Conservative party, some of whom are in the House, do not walk away with bags of gold at the expense of the housewife.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. Nothing that the Government have done or supported is an attack on our suppliers and friends in New Zealand, who have supplied this country with quality produce for decades. It is up to individual producers and supermarkets in this country to arrange their supply chain. We ask them to consider the British supply chain. We ask them not to impose conditions on British food producers and then buy from foreign producers who do not meet the same welfare conditions.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Does the Minister agree that, as farm incomes have decreased by more than £2 billion in the past two years, the very survival of British farmers depends on a lot more than supermarket prices—it depends on direct action by the Government? As we have been promised a statement in the House next week, will the Minister confirm that, as a minimum, he will use the statement to apply the whole of the large underspend on the agriculture budget from the past two years to extend the calf processing scheme for a year, to raise hill livestock compensatory allowances by 50 per cent. and to enable the agrimonetary compensation currently available for the livestock sector to be taken up?

Mr. Rooker: I ask the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House to await the statement that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has offered to make next Monday or Tuesday. It is preposterous to expect detailed answers from the Dispatch Box today when we have promised a statement next week.

Pig Industry

Mr. William Thompson: If he will make a statement on the current state of the pig industry. [58043]

Mr. John Townend: If he will make a statement on the current state of the pig industry. [58051]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I take the current crisis in the pig industry very seriously. The industry is going through a difficult time as a result of low market prices. That is mainly the result of over-production, which has led to a distorted version of the classic pig cycle.

Mr. Thompson: I welcome the Minister's reply that the Government now appreciate the serious problems in the pig industry and the fact that there will be a statement next week, but will he confirm that the package will contain a significant element to ease pig farmers' problems?

Mr. Brown: The Government have been taking a range of actions to try to help the pig industry, and I am conscious of the particular difficulties in the Province, where the processing fire made matters substantially worse. We introduced special aid there to help in those local circumstances. I cannot introduce new state aid for the pig industry. It is a relatively liberal market; the Commission determined that it should stay that way, and its broad approach is right.

Mr. Townend: Does the Minister agree that one of the major problems facing pig farmers is that they are not able to compete on a level playing field with their competitors in Europe, principally because of the actions of British Governments? For example, they have to spend millions of pounds on getting rid of stalls and tethers, which the Dutch and the Danes do not have to pay for; they are not allowed to feed bonemeal to their pigs, but the Dutch and the Danes can; and the income that they used to get from rendering has been turned into a loss because of the increase in health regulations. What will the Minister do to make that playing field more level?
In view of what his colleague the Minister of State said about the need for the supermarkets to buy pigmeat that is welfare friendly, will the right hon. Gentleman instruct public sector institutions such as hospitals, schools and defence establishments to change their tender specifications so that the only pork and bacon that are acceptable come from pigs that have not been fed bonemeal or kept in stalls and tethers, so levelling the playing field a little?

Mr. Brown: I fully accept that pig producers are entitled to a welfare premium on their produce. Parliament put in place the stall and tether ban for perfectly proper reasons. That is an on-cost in the industry, and in the European Union market, which is a free market; it is not met by other producers. In those circumstances, it is reasonable for parliamentarians to say that consumers should be able to buy to the highest welfare standards and the highest produce standards. As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, meat and bonemeal are not fed to pigs in this country. As a consumer of pigmeat, that is something that I like to know—so when I buy pigmeat in the supermarket, I look for the Union Jack. That is a perfectly sensible thing to do.
On public procurement, I cannot rewrite the procurement policies of other Departments, but I have had discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence, who assures me that purchases for the armed services are 100 per cent. British for fresh pigmeat and over 50 per cent. British for bacon. The services are trying to improve

on that. I have made representations to other substantial public sector purchasers. I certainly intend to do everything that I reasonably can, within the rules, to help the industry through what I freely acknowledge are very difficult times.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend enlighten me? I understand that, as a result of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis, the technology of traceability has improved by leaps and bounds. If we are to emancipate the consumer, can we use that new traceability technology—the ability to identify whether products are British or foreign, and even trace back to the field and farm where the pig was produced—to provide real consumer choice, including organic choice, in pig production?

Mr. Brown: The conditions of production are such in this country that, if a discerning consumer wishes to purchase to the highest welfare and feed standards, he or she could do no better than to buy British pig meat. As my hon. Friend points out correctly, traceability is here to stay. It will be a continuing feature of all meat markets in the United Kingdom in one form or another.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Last Wednesday, the Minister claimed, at column 952 of Hansard, that he had agreed with the British Retail Consortium that all pigmeat sold in supermarkets would be from animals raised to the high welfare standards required in Britain. Is the Minister aware that, the previous day, the consortium had said that the agreement applied only to fresh pigmeat? Was the House misled last week? Does the Minister understand that there is a huge difference between those two statements? Do not pig farmers deserve a fair deal from the Government, not a fudged one?

Mr. Brown: Pig farmers will get the fairest deal that I can give them. The original press release issued by both my Department and the British Retail Consortium was agreed by the parties beforehand. A second version of the press release was issued by the British Retail Consortium, inserting the word "fresh". Therefore, it could be claimed that that distorted its meaning.
The British Retail Consortium assures me that its commitment regarding pigmeat sold in its outlets—being stall and tether-free and meat and bonemeal-free—applies not only to fresh pork but to processed products, such as bacon, and is being extended to cover ham, sausages and even pork pies. Some retailers are already sourcing welfare-friendly pigmeat. They are major advances, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming them.

Moorlands Regeneration

Charlotte Atkins: What proposals he has to encourage the regeneration of the moorlands. [58044]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We intend to improve both the environmentally sensitive areas scheme and the countryside stewardship scheme to give greater encouragement to regenerating moorland.


We will also add £1 million to the budget for new countryside stewardship agreements for next year in order to increase the number of agreements in the uplands.

Charlotte Atkins: I thank the Minister for that answer, because the evidence of farmers in trouble in Staffordshire, Moorlands is all too apparent: broken stone walls, derelict farm buildings, wildlife under threat and overgrown fields. I am particularly concerned about the countryside stewardship scheme in the uplands because it has been a lifeline to many farmers in my area.

Mr. Morley: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the countryside stewardship scheme is very important in terms not only of environmental enhancement but of support for the rural economy, providing jobs and the opportunity to revive skills that have been lost, such as dry stone walling and hedge laying. For that reason, we have added a further £1 million to the scheme. In 1998, we expect to offer a total of 1,344 country stewardship agreements.

Farm Diversification

Mr. Derek Foster: What measures have been taken to promote farm diversification. [58045]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Funding to encourage a wide range of agricultural activities, including farm diversification, is available in the six areas designated to receive assistance under the English objective 5b structural fund programmes. No grant aid for farm diversification is available outside those areas.

Mr. Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am very pleased to see him in his place, and offer him my full support. On diversification, will he bear in mind the fact that the 600 sheep farmers in upper Teesdale, in my constituency—which he will soon visit—have been undergoing the worst crisis in the 20 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, and perhaps in 25 years? Will he also bear in mind the fact that they are mostly tenant farmers, and that there is very little incentive for them to diversify, because any betterment goes to the landlord?

Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I thank him for his kind remarks. I do intend to visit his constituents soon, but only after I have made my announcement on Monday or Tuesday next week, when I hope that I shall have said something that will please them.

Mr. Peter Luff: I am glad that the Minister is as brave as ever. Does he agree that the draft rural development regulations that are being laid before the Commission at present are excessively timid, whether in relation to farm diversification, agri-environmental measures or other rural development measures? Does he agree that effective reform of the common agricultural policy will depend on a much braver, bolder initiative by the Commission than the one that we have seen?

Mr. Brown: The Commission's proposals are a useful start to CAP reform because they go in the right direction.

I am strongly committed to diversification measures. Farm diversification already accounts for about 11 per cent. of all farm incomes, so it has an important part to play in the rural economy—perhaps more than is sometimes appreciated. I strongly support the extension of such measures, and will do what I can to achieve that.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to diversify fully, farmers will need to be helped by liberalisation of the planning regime in our country? Will he join me in welcoming the Government's announcement that they intend to liberalise that regime? I know, as a result of meeting people in the rural part of my constituency, that they do want enterprise in the countryside and they do want to work in the countryside. They do not want to freeze the countryside in aspic, as the green belt policies of the Conservative party often seem to want to do.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that the Government take a constructive attitude to farm diversification policies. About 41 per cent. of farms benefit from some form of diversification. That is a good thing, and should be supported.

Food Safety

Dr. Julian Lewis: What assessment he has made of food safety standards across the European Union. [58046]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Government are anxious to promote common high food safety standards throughout the European Union. Monitoring in this area is the responsibility of the Commission, and we continue to press almost daily for the maintenance of high and consistent standards.

Dr. Lewis: What does it tell us about food safety standards in the European Union that, of the 1,700 cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to have been expected on the continent as a result of our exports of beef to the continent between 1985 and 1990, only 30 cases were reported? Does it mean that the pure air of the continent miraculously cures cattle of BSE when they breathe it, or does it mean that some of our partners in the European Union are less honest than we are in reporting BSE outbreaks?

Mr. Rooker: I do not think that it tells us what the hon. Gentleman implies. In this country, in respect of EU directives in meat hygiene, we have under-regulated and under-enforced the regulations, which was a matter of deliberate policy by the previous Government. [Interruption.] The Conservatives may not like it, but it is a fact, so it is nonsense to suggest that we are the only ones obeying the rules. In some respects, regulations in the meat hygiene sector in other parts of the European Union are better enforced than in this country. We are seeking to raise standards of meat hygiene in this country, and to enforce regulations and directives rigorously.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I thank my hon. Friend for saying that the Government must urgently take steps to improve regulation and its


enforcement. Will he acknowledge that there is sustained and, if anything, growing public concern about the need for independent and consistent advice throughout the area of food safety? What steps does he propose to take, not simply to follow what is going on in the rest of the European Union, but to set an example?

Mr. Rooker: The greatest example that Europe will have is the Food Standards Agency, when we set it up. That was one of the most popular proposals in the manifesto. The idea that we shall share with Europe in due course will concern separation of responsibility for food safety standards from the Ministry responsible for sponsoring the food industry and food producers. That is why we have already taken steps to lock all key food standards policy decisions into the joint food standards and safety group with the Department of Health, so that no key decisions on food safety will be taken by MAFF alone. That is a lesson and a practice which we can sell to the rest of Europe.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Returning to the Minister's opening response to the question, and given the near daily contact that he and his colleagues have with the European Commission to encourage and maintain food safety standards across the European Union, and the impact of imports to this country, does he agree that our hand would be immeasurably strengthened in making those proper representations if there were no remaining ambiguity about the progress and process of food standards legislation in this country? Will he clear up the ambiguity that remains, particularly as we want to maintain our leverage on Europe, as well as improve our standards at home?

Mr. Rooker: I do not believe that there is ambiguity. The measures that have been taken in the past 18 months in setting up the joint food standards and safety group—a discrete group operating across two Government Departments in a way that is almost unique in government—are a major step. We are considering further ways to raise the profile of the group and its work. We published the White Paper. We distributed 3 million leaflets through a supermarket chain earlier in the year, telling people why we need an independent Food Standards Agency. Those reasons are as relevant today as when we made the proposal. The fact that, over the past 18 months, we have been able to deal with food crises without closing down sectors of the food industry is a measure of our success in co-operating. The principal instrument is the fact that no key food safety standards decisions are made exclusively in MAFF any longer—they are made in total co-operation and agreement with the Department of Health.

Mr. David Lepper: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about the progress of the Food Standards Agency. Will he take this opportunity to deny press speculation that the Government have abandoned that project because of pressure from food manufacturers?

Mr. Rooker: I have no better way to give the lie to that than to recall the words of the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box about two weeks ago. The establishment of the Food Standards Agency remains Government policy.

There has been no pressure. No one in the food industry has said to MAFF during our consultations on the White Paper, when we received more than 1,100 responses, and at conferences throughout the country since then, that he does not want the Food Standards Agency. The entire food industry, to a greater or lesser degree, sees merit in introducing an independent element into the way in which we make decisions. There has been no back-door pressure whatever.
What is more, there is no turf war between Ministries in Whitehall. MAFF will give up the regulation of food standards and safety. That is part of Government policy and of the manifesto on which we were elected. It cannot be done overnight, and it must be done while maintaining existing standards and strengthening the processes, until the legislation is passed.

Mr. James Paice: Many people will be surprised at the Minister's last remark. Perhaps he will explain to the House why the draft Bill promised months ago has not yet appeared.
Food can come into this country from any European country without any checks being made. Why are the standards for poultrymeat that comes in from third countries less rigorous than those for home-produced chicken? Why does the Minister intend to put even more vets into our slaughterhouses and to charge the slaughterhouse owners, while allowing imports from Thailand and Brazil, which do have such rigorous standards applied to them? I understand that he does not even know what tests are made on such imports, or what the results of those tests are.

Mr. Rooker: The short answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that we are in the single market, which we were taken into by the Conservative Government, and within which there is free trade. Within the EU, products can be freely transferred between countries. On occasion, especially in the meat sector, spot checks are made at the border points of entry and consignments turned back.
In relation to food coming into Britain, we take into account the evidence obtained through checks around the world. We wish to make standards higher than they have been hitherto and we shall continue to do that.

Genetically Modified Foods

Ms Debra Shipley: What steps the Government are taking to ensure the clear labelling of genetically modified foods. [58047]

Mrs. Eileen Gordon: What steps the Government are taking to ensure the clear labelling of genetically modified foods. [58053]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Government have widely publicised the EC regulations which require all foods containing GM materials to be clearly labelled and have made it clear that they expect those to be effectively enforced.

Ms Shipley: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and for his extensive written replies to my constituents, many of whom, along with many organisations in Stourbridge, have written to me on the subject.


Is there not a problem, in that the EU thresholds for GM ingredients have not yet been agreed, and the labelling regulations that came into force on 1 September do not include ingredients which are part of the manufacturing and refining processes?

Mr. Rooker: I agree with my hon. Friend. The rules that came into force on 1 September apply to the ingredients in the food purchased by the consumer; they do not affect the manufacturing process where GM materials may have been used but are no longer part of the ingredients.
We are negotiating on the important issue of tolerance levels. The new rules do not apply to additives and flavourings. We think that they should and we are pursuing that in Brussels. It is important to have tolerance levels for GM produce. At a public meeting recently, I learned that some manufacturers have commercial contracts for buying and selling foods to each other where tolerance levels of 0.1 to 1 per cent. are allowed for GM produce in allegedly non-GM foods.

Mrs. Gordon: Will my hon. Friend emphasise the Government's view and intention that consumers should be told exactly what is in their food so that they can make an informed choice about whether to purchase it? Does he intend to take further measures to increase consumer confidence and is he planning any sanctions or actions against food producers and retailers that do not comply with clear-labelling regulations?

Mr. Rooker: Abuse or breach of the labelling regulations will result in prosecution by the regulatory authorities. That is important. Only four foods have been approved for sale in Britain—maize, soya, vegetarian cheese and GM tomato paste. All are required to be effectively labelled so that consumers have a choice. MAFF has produced a list of 59 non-GM soya producers in the United States and Canada, so that people in Britain can source that material and declare that it is not genetically modified. We have taken steps in that respect.
A sub-group of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes will shortly be holding a further open meeting to discuss the post-marketing and monitoring of those foods. It is not sufficient for them to be regulated and approved as rigorously as they are, and then for the Government and the regulatory authorities to walk away. We shall monitor the foods and their use throughout the food chain, both for human and animal health, and we shall set up procedures for that.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Are the Government planning to give farmers some protection against any legal liability which might arise as a result of damage to the health of consumers who eat GM crops and food? Has the Minister been told that planeloads of GM food are coming in by the day from the United States, where GM and non-GM foods are grown, processed and sold together? That makes a bit of a nonsense of the labelling that we are talking about with regard to Europe.

Mr. Rooker: I must make it clear that when those foods end up on the supermarket shelves, their labels must state that they contain genetically modified ingredients. That is a requirement. If GM and non-GM ingredients are mixed in the manufacturing process, the made-up food,

especially soya, must be labelled as genetically modified before it can be sold in the supermarket. We cannot legally force the Americans to segregate, but one day they will wake up to the fact that market pressure—which they well understand—will probably force segregation. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that material is now in this country, but labelling is required. Consumers then have the choice of whether to buy it.
Under the Food Safety Act 1990, liability rests on the seller and the producer of the food. No one needs immunities in that respect. There is a requirement on producers and sellers to ensure that the food that they sell is safe.

Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister will be aware that no test can say whether milk has been produced with the addition of synthetic or recombinant bovine somatotropin in the production process. As there can therefore be no viable labelling regime, will he reassure the House and consumers that the Government will campaign in Brussels for an extension of the moratorium on the use of BST?

Mr. Rooker: Yes.

Fishing Industry

Shona McIsaac: When he last met representatives of the fishing industry to discuss the current state of the fishing industry. [58049]

Mr. Michael Connarty: When he last held discussions with representatives of the fishing industry to discuss protection of the Irish box. [58056]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I regularly meet fishing industry representatives and I last met the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations on 20 October. Discussions have covered a wide range of issues, including fishing quotas, but not the protection of the Irish box.

Shona McIsaac: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In his discussions, which have covered a wide range of issues, has it been brought to his attention that in Grimsby and Cleethorpes there is no permanent memorial to those who lost their lives at sea? Will he support a local campaign, launched by the Grimsby Evening Telegraph, to raise money for such a memorial?

Mr. Morley: The Grimsby Evening Telegraph and its sister newspaper, the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph, have an excellent record in community campaigning and involvement. I was privileged recently to unveil a memorial to lost British trawler men in Iceland. It was partly funded by North-East Lincolnshire council—formerly Grimsby council — Aberdeen council and Hull city council. It is important to recognise the sacrifices and dangers faced by our deep-sea fleet, both in the past and in the present. I wish the Grimsby Evening Telegraph well in its campaign, which is a fitting tribute for the new millennium to the history of Grimsby.

Mr. Connarty: My hon. Friend the Minister will remember the anger that we all felt when, having told us


that the Irish box would be protected in the negotiations, the previous Government returned from Brussels having sold out fishing in the Irish box for some other deal. My hon. Friend says that there have been no further discussions on protection of the Irish box. Will the Government make it a priority to win back protection of the Irish box, which is vital to Scottish and other northern fishermen who fish in the west?

Mr. Morley: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. A great deal of the Irish box comes within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland, but we have jurisdiction over England and Scotland through the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency. May I inform my hon. Friend that we have recently agreed new contracts for aerial supervision of areas such as the Irish box? State-of-the-art technology will ensure that all fishing boats, from whatever country, follow the rules.

Mr. Andrew George: Although I appreciate that attention must be given to controlling the effort of the most efficient forms of fishing, does the Minister agree that much more attention must now be paid to giving sustainable methods of fishery appropriate promotion and encouragement, such as we see around the shores of this country in the inshore industry?

Mr. Morley: I recognise that point. The inshore industry has many advantages—it is low impact and it can be highly sustainable. It has, of course, to come within the quota management and the enforcement rules. Post-2002, in a review of the common fisheries policy, there may be an opportunity to examine the role of sustainable fisheries. Indeed, we are also giving thought to quota management for our inshore fleet to find out whether we can assist the industry better, but the key to enforcement and sustainability is to ensure that the rules are obeyed. The Government have made it clear that they intend to do that.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Has the hon. Gentleman made it clear in those meetings that, if article 14(2) of regulation 3760/92 is read in its entirety, there is not the slightest doubt in law that a unanimous vote in the European Union for still further derogations will be necessary because, otherwise, other nations will be able to demand complete access to the United Kingdom's exclusive fishing zone after 2002? Perhaps the Minister will share with the House what concessions he is already planning to make against this nation's national interest, to try to secure that unanimity.

Mr. Morley: We do not need any lessons from the Conservative party about concessions in the fishing industry. The hon. Gentleman is misreading the implications of that regulation. I am quite confident that, post-2002, relative stability, which is important to the United Kingdom industry, will continue unless there is a majority vote against that. In the same way, coastal limits will, in my view, be renewed post-2002. The key to access is quota access. If relative stability is maintained—I am absolutely confident that it will be—the issue does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Attorney-General was asked—

Foreign Nationals (Prosecution)

Mr. David Winnick: If he will make a statement on his policy on the prosecution of foreign nationals while in the United Kingdom for the torture and killings of British citizens elsewhere. [58031]

The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): Cases involving possible criminal proceedings on the basis of extra-territorial jurisdiction are considered in the same way as any other case—that is, in accordance with the twin tests set out in the code for Crown prosecutors; whether there is sufficient admissible evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction, and whether the prosecution is in the public interest. That applies equally to those cases that require my consent to be prosecuted, such as allegations of offences under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Mr. Winnick: Arising from what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, is it not important that former murderous dictators—for example, Idi Amin, or Saddam Hussein, when he is, I hope, no longer in power—should not consider the United Kingdom to be some kind of safe haven from justice, international law and extradition agreements with other countries? Should not that be made perfectly clear today?

The Attorney-General: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I remind him that the investigation of criminal misconduct is for the police to undertake. If a file of evidence is submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration of a prosecution, or if I receive an application for consent to prosecute, each case will be considered in the usual way—that is, by applying the twin tests that I have mentioned.
If the issue arose in respect of Mr. Milosevic, there is the international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and we would therefore expect Milosevic to appear in The Hague for trial. The United Kingdom provided additional funds for an additional court room in The Hague, which I had the privilege of opening in the summer.

Mr. John Burnett: What advice would the Attorney-General give to Ministers if a court held that an individual should be extradited, but letters of comfort or undertakings had been given by the Government or the previous Government, and had not been revoked, which made it clear that that individual could come to this country—for example, for medical treatment—without fear of extradition?

The Attorney-General: If I were asked for advice, that advice would take into consideration all relevant factors in any individual case. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the fact and the contents of a Law Officer's advice to Ministers is confidential.

Sir Sydney Chapman: If a person comes to this country with diplomatic immunity, is it not incumbent on this country—the host country—to tell that


person that he is not welcome, rather than allowing him to come with diplomatic immunity, and allowing certain other events to take their course? If the principle of diplomatic immunity is broken, is that not a bad thing, and could it not rebound on our country's diplomats in future?

The Attorney-General: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The hon. Gentleman will have read in the newspapers, as I have, that an issue with some implications of that sort is now before the House of Lords. As I understand the ruling, it is currently sub judice.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Michael Jack: When he last met the President of the Law Society to discuss the work of the Crown Prosecution Service. [58032]

The Attorney-General: I met the then president of the Law Society on 1 June 1998 to discuss the Glidewell report. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and I met his successor for a general discussion on 13 October.

Mr. Jack: I thank the Attorney-General for his answer, but I am sorry that the question of rights of audience for lawyers employed by the Crown Prosecution Service was not on the agenda for those discussions. The Attorney-General will know that members of the Bar and, indeed, the judiciary have reservations about lawyers being given rights of audience. Conversely, those represented by the Law Society feel that they should have them. The matter has been around for a considerable time. Can the Attorney-General tell us what is the current position, when action will be taken and when the issue will be resolved?

The Attorney-General: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of Parliament in 1990, when the Courts and Legal Services Act was passed—an Act which he supported. Unfortunately, the legislation created a problem that took years and years—six years, in the case of employed solicitors—to resolve. We are determined to change that.
Employed solicitors now have limited access to the higher courts. The position of the employed Bar is being dealt with by the same machinery, and I hope that will be a much shorter process. As regards the future, the Lord Chancellor has drawn up proposals to open all the courts to all lawyers. Consultation was completed on 14 September and, when the Lord Chancellor has made a decision—soon, I hope—and when time is available, legislation will be introduced. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall not fall into the trap of the 1990 Act.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend contact the Crown Prosecution Service about the extraordinary events involving Britain's most senior woman judge? She was involved in an accident—which she has admitted to have been entirely her fault—in which a nanny employed by her family received appalling facial injuries. Glass is still embedded behind her eyes and it is possible that she will lose her sight in both eyes.
The judge has been told that she will not be prosecuted, but must undergo a number of hours of extra tuition in driving skills. She will face no charge—she will incur no penalty points and no fine. The young nanny, however, was warned that she might be charged with the offence of not wearing a seat belt. Is that not extraordinary? The impression might well be gained that there is soft justice for judges and the gentry, but tough law for nannies and all the rest of us.

The Attorney-General: I am, of course, aware of the newspaper reports of the incident, as far as they go. However, it is an operational matter for the police. The decision was made by the police; they did not consult the CPS, and they were not required to do so. The matter is not within my ministerial responsibility.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: First, may I take this opportunity of welcoming Mr. David Calvert-Smith QC as the new Director of Public Prosecutions and wish him well in his demanding role?
In relation to that role, does the Attorney-General recall that more than 18 months ago, within days of coming to office, he announced the appointment by April this year of 42 new chief Crown prosecutors for each police area—some of whom, no doubt, would be solicitors and members of the Law Society?
Is it not the case that, more than 18 months later and almost six months after the Glidewell report, no new chief Crown prosecutors have been appointed? When can we expect those appointments? Is that not another example of the Government pretending to come in with a bang, but, after one and a half years, finding it difficult even to utter a whimper?

The Attorney-General: I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we did come in with a bang and started to deal with the appalling mess that he and the Conservative Government had left us. They remained silent when everyone in the land knew that something was appallingly wrong with the Crown Prosecution Service. We immediately decided that the service should have 42 areas and we appointed a chief executive shortly after the Glidewell report was published. The review considered in great depth the evidence it was given and its report was welcomed by all. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will also now welcome it. We have also appointed a new Director of Public Prosecution, Mr. David Calvert-Smith, who is a distinguished member of the Bar with great prosecuting experience. His appointment, too, was welcomed by all. Now that he is in post, he can advertise for and interview applicants for the 42 posts of chief Crown prosecutor.

Child Prostitution

30. Mr. Colin Breed: If he will make it his policy not to prosecute children under 16 years for prostitution-related offences. [58035]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): Prostitution itself is not a criminal offence. However, a person who loiters or solicits for the purpose of prostitution does commit a criminal offence. There is strong evidence that most young people engaged in prostitution are victims of abuse and exploitation.


The primary response, therefore, is to identify a form a diversionary action, which will protect young people from further harm and enable them to resume an age-appropriate life style. However, criminal sanctions against a young person who persistently and voluntarily returns to prostitution need to be retained.

Mr. Breed: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. I hope that he has had an opportunity to read the excellent report on prostitution by the Soroptimist international working party, which states that between 1989 and 1993, some 3,300 young girls were prosecuted, yet in 1993, only 49 adults were convicted for pimping. Are not we placing far more emphasis on pursuing the victims of the crime than on punishing the real criminals?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The children are victims and the focus of attention should be on those who abuse and coerce them. I congratulate the police, who, in the past year, have done ground-breaking work on the matter. The Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines, which emphasise diversion, have been piloted in Wolverhampton and Northampton. The Government will prepare, for the first time, comprehensive guidelines for agencies dealing with children to divert girls and boys from a life in prostitution.

Ms Jenny Jones: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on his appointment as Solicitor-General and welcome him to his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. He mentioned the pilot scheme in Wolverhampton, which is developing new ways to deal with under-age prostitution, based on the premise that children under 16 who are forced into prostitution should be treated as victims of child abuse

and not as criminals. How many prosecutions of adults who force children under 16 into prostitution have there been as a result of the scheme in Wolverhampton? As his constituency is only a few miles down the road from mine, will he come to Wolverhampton to see the good work that is being done?

The Solicitor-General: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. As she said, we have adjoining constituencies and I will take her up on her invitation.
The pilot in Wolverhampton last year and early this year has had a beneficial effect in that only 10 out of 66 children identified have returned to prostitution. More importantly, as my hon. Friend rightly said, the pilot has led to the prosecution of adults–18 have been charged with very serious offences, including rape, kidnap, unlawful imprisonment and attempting to pervert the course of justice. Five have already been convicted and the other cases are on-going.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Bearing in mind the fact that the Solicitor-General said that under-16-year-olds are more often victims and are extremely vulnerable in prostitution cases, what advice would he give the Government about under-16 activities in the event that the age of homosexual consent is reduced to 16?

The Solicitor-General: As the hon. Lady knows, that is a matter for a free vote. The current law covers only soliciting by girls, so we need to address the problem of prostitution by boys. She will also be aware that the Government have sexual offences under review. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will introduce proposals for reforming the law in the coming year.

Business of the House

Madam Speaker: At this time I would take the private notice question to the Secretary of State for Health, but there is a problem with the Department's computers. As the Leader and shadow Leader of the House have been able to make themselves available, it will be sensible for us to proceed with the business question, and take the private notice question when the Minister is here.

Sir Patrick Cormack: We completely accept your judgment, Madam Speaker, although we hope that this is not a foretaste of the millennium bug. Will the Leader of the House be kind enough to give us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 16 NOVEMBER—Until about 7 o'clock, conclusion of consideration of Lords amendments to the Scotland Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Regional Development Agencies Bill.
Consideration of any Lords Amendments which may be received.
TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER—Motion to approve the seventh report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the scrutiny of European business and proposed amendments to standing orders.
Motion to appoint a new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Motion on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) (No. 2) Order.
Consideration of any Lords Amendments which may be received.
WEDNESDAY 18 NOVEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Northern Ireland Bill.
Consideration of any Lords messages which may be received.
THURSDAY 19 NOVEMBER AND FRIDAY 20 NOVEMBER—The House will be prorogued when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified.
The House will also wish to be reminded that, on Wednesday 18 November, there will be a debate on agrimonetary arrangements and the introduction of the euro in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on European Commission development aid to South Africa (1986–96) in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 18 November: European Standing Committee A: European Community document: 9597/98, agrimonetary arrangements following the introduction of the Euro. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: (a) HC 155-xxxiii and HC 155-xxxviii (1997–98)
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 9690/98, EC development aid to South Africa (1986–1996). Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-xxxvi (1997–98).]

Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for next week. Will she conduct an investigation into the computer effectiveness of various Government Departments, so that we do not have a repetition of what I am sure she will agree has been an unfortunate occurrence this afternoon?
Will the Leader of the House make a statement to the House on Monday on the concordat between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, and tell us what bearing it will have on the allocation of Opposition days in the next Session?
Will the Leader of the House tell us the Government's intentions if the other place once again rejects the closed-list system for European elections? Is she aware that, in the recent debates here and in the other place, not a single Labour Member of Parliament or Labour peer spoke in favour of the closed-list system? Has she sought the advice of the hon. Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on the desirability of that system? Can she name a single Labour Back Bencher who enthusiastically supports it?
The Leader of the House will know that my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House and I have asked for debates on the economy and on foreign affairs. We appreciate that, as this lengthy Session grinds to a close, she will not be able to give a day's debate to both those subjects next week, but will she assure us, given the critical situation of Iraq, that a statement will be made next week and time found for a debate, if necessary? Will she also give an assurance that we will have proper, full debates on the earliest possible dates in the new Session, not only on the Queen's Speech, but on the economy and on foreign affairs?
Will the Leader of the House give us next week, perhaps in lieu of the normal Business Statement, a statement on how she views the timetable for the coming Session? Will she try to ensure that the Government's legislative zeal does not leave the House unable to debate, adequately and properly, non-legislative subjects? Will she especially assure us that, if House of Lords reform is in the Queen's Speech, every stage of that Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asked about the viability of computers used in Government Departments. We all regret the difficulties that have been caused today, and nobody more so that Ministers from the Department of Health. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government endeavour to ensure that Departments provide the right service to the House as to others.
The hon. Gentleman asked about discussions that are taking place. I am sure that he is aware that there have been discussions between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats in the past, which focused primarily on constitutional issues and matters on which the two parties were in agreement. That is all that is under debate today.
The hon. Gentleman asked about—oh dear, all I have written down is, "intentions with regard to the other place". It might be helpful if the hon. Gentleman were to


provide me with a summary list, if he and his right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House intend to ask as many as seven or nine questions at Business Questions, because it is hard to keep track of them. The hon. Gentleman asked about our intentions, and it remains the Government's view that they have put forward the right legislation. It has been carried in the House, and the Government will continue to advocate its cause in the other place.
The hon. Gentleman asked for debates on the economy and foreign affairs, with especial attention to the issue of Iraq. He is aware that we anticipate Queen's Speech debates in the not-too-distant future, and I cannot pre-empt the timetable beyond then. However, I can assure him that we will try to the best of our ability to keep the House informed, as we have so far, about the handling of the issue of Iraq.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the parliamentary timetable for the next Session. It is always a question of balance. When the Government have a full programme, especially if they have recently come to office, a tension is always felt between that programme and more general debates. We will put forward a programme of legislation that will be a further substantial step towards implementing the Government's manifesto, and we will do our utmost to reconcile that with proper debate.
The hon. Gentleman's final question concerned reform of the other place. It is of course not proper for me to pre-empt or prejudge what might be in the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prime Minister made it clear on the "Today" programme this morning that British forces could be engaged in military action by the end of next week? That statement was not made in the House, and no provision has been made for a debate on the matter, whatever its merits may be. That is not the proper way in which to treat the House of Commons.
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the current relations between two political parties in the House are not a private matter between two party leaders, but concern the relationship between the legislature and the Executive? Will there still be Supply days for the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) now that he is on a Cabinet Committee? Will it be possible for us to table parliamentary questions to him? Has not Parliament been totally sidelined over two fundamental matters that affect the rights of Members to represent both service men and the people who elected a Labour Government, not a Lib-Lab Government?

Mrs. Beckett: I did hear the interview to which my right hon. Friend referred. I am also well aware that he, like many other Members, is a jealous guardian of the rights of the House. However, I did not take from the interview given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the reading that my right hon. Friend the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has given in suggesting that the Prime Minister said something that has not been said in the House. I do not recall whether my right hon. Friend was in his place—he probably was—during Prime Minister's Questions yesterday, when the Prime Minister made remarks almost identical to those that he made on the radio this morning.
There is no question of the Prime Minister having said something that he has not aired here. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly kept the House informed, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The House is aware of the unchanged situation in Iraq during the past few days; Saddam Hussein has chosen to break the agreements made both after the Gulf war, and with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The House has been kept informed. I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend that the Prime Minister has said something different today from what he has said in the House.
My right hon. Friend also asked about the discussions between the Liberal Democrat party and the Labour party. I repeat that those discussions have hitherto focused on constitutional matters. A discussion is taking place today on whether there are other matters on which there is sufficient agreement on policy issues to merit further exploration. Those discussions are in progress, but they have come to no conclusion. There is no question of appointments or of procedures of the type mentioned by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Pursuant to the first question put by my hon. Friend the deputy shadow Leader of the House, may I ask for a statement next week on the Government's progress towards anticipating the millennium bug, particularly following the Task Force 2000 report, which states that nine Departments are not up to speed—led, embarrassingly, by the Department of Trade and Industry?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to allow for a statement next week, but there will certainly be a statement soon to give an update. The Government began to give the House such updates on preparations, for the millennium bug—particularly our own—and we shall certainly continue to do so.
I am aware of the Task Force 2000 report. As task force members would acknowledge, the situation is continually changing. I do not share all the analysis by the task force, but I am always happy to know that others are concerned about the matter. It is vital that everyone who is aware of the issue should continue to urge people in all organisations, particularly those who run small and medium businesses, to take as much action as possible. There is still time in which to make a substantial difference to people's preparedness, and in which to prepare contingency plans for unforeseen developments. We are doing both those things, and we shall continue to report progress to the House.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I return to the concordat between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats? There has been no discussion of that matter in the parliamentary Labour party or in the wider Labour party. It is a great relief to hear that there will be no appointments of Liberal Democrats to Cabinet Sub-Committees. If there are to be constitutional changes, so that Liberal Democrats can be secreted on to Cabinet Sub-Committees, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made to the House—not, with respect, by her, but by the Prime Minister?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend says that this matter has not been discussed in this context recently within the


parliamentary party, but, as I pointed out some moments ago, all that has been said in the announcement under discussion is that, as arrangements already exist in the form of a channel for communication and discussion on issues where there is agreement and common ground, in particular on constitutional issues, it is being considered whether there are other areas of agreement and common ground.
My hon. Friend will be entirely aware, as is the whole House, that, although we may see eye to eye with members of other parties, including even those in the Tory party, on issues such as economic and monetary union, there are those in the official Opposition who see rather more eye to eye with this Government than they do with their own on this matter. It is sensible, mature politics to take forward ideas with those where there is common ground. Obviously, there are many issues, as I am sure the Liberal Democrats would be the first to acknowledge, on which there is not common ground, about which we not only disagree, but express our disagreement.

Mr. Paul Tyler: rose—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Tyler: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Leader of the House for the fact that I was caught out by the change in the sequence of the business and the late announcement on the Annunciator.
I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that, when the far left and the far right attack one, one knows that one has it just about right. After 35 years in politics, I have learnt that through experience. Can the Leader of the House give us any indication when it may be possible to allocate time for a debate on Iraq? There is a general view throughout the House that that would be helpful. To leave it until late next week, when inevitably we shall be up against the buffers, would be unfortunate.
Can the right hon. Lady give us any indication of her preferred timetable for reports from the Modernisation Committee? She will acknowledge the widespread concern throughout the House, particularly but not exclusively from Back-Bench Members, that we have been unable to make more progress in bringing forward recommendations for the House to consider.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty with the timing of the business statement. We all had rather short notice of that.
The whole House shares the view that the situation in Iraq is serious and is to be kept under review. It is entirely a matter for the Chair, and I do not wish in any way to pre-empt the decisions of the Chair, but this afternoon there is a debate on defence matters in which Members may find it possible to raise these issues, should they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I said, that is a matter for the Chair.
We anticipate that there will be debates on these matters in the aftermath of the Queen's Speech. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that, whether or not there is a specific day on Iraq, the Government will certainly keep the House informed about developments, and will take seriously such a request should dramatic developments require such a decision.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the timetable for modernisation. I hope that, within this calendar year, the Modernisation Committee may be able to put some proposals to the House for consideration and decision.

Mr. Harry Barnes: All hon. Members have received a letter from the relevant Foreign Office Ministers on Iraq to tell us how hideous Saddam Hussein is, with which we would all agree. However, there is no letter to tell us about the conditions of the Iraqi people, yet the intention is to bomb the Iraqi people, not Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein will not be concerned about what happens to his people. Should not we be concerned? Therefore, should we not have a specific and immediate debate on the situation in Iraq?

Mrs. Beckett: Everyone in the House shares my hon. Friend's concern for the Iraqi people, but I am confident that he knows that the responsibility for their condition lies squarely with Saddam Hussein and his immediate allies. Their difficulties with food and medicine shortages about which we are constantly told are entirely because of a decision made by the Government of Iraq. Nothing that the international community is doing prevents the people of Iraq from being much better treated. I heed my hon. Friend's words about the importance of keeping the situation in Iraq under review, and repeat the assurances that I have given to other hon. Members that the Government are very conscious of it in respect of the House.

Mr. Eric Forth: I also apologise for arriving a couple of minutes late, because of the last-minute change of business.
Following several other questions, now that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and the Prime Minister are metaphorically in bed together, could we not explore in an urgent debate the important parliamentary and constitutional implications of this development? We must be told exactly what role the right hon. Member for Yeovil has in government, and how it alters the relationship between the Government party and an Opposition party, up to now, so-called.
How will this affect that party's rights in this House in terms of questioning and debates and the Chair calling its members? All these matters are of considerable importance. If the development is as important as both the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Yeovil insisted on the radio this morning—the galactic future of the universe was the implication I got—surely we in this House should be able to debate it properly, and give our views of what is going on.

Mrs. Beckett: I have little—in fact, nothing—to add to what I have already told several hon. Members on this matter. I certainly cannot undertake to find time for a debate on it. I realise that, to many members of the Conservative party, it must come as a devastating shock that mature politicians can agree about some things, as they cannot even agree among themselves.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Concerns about the millennium bug were raised earlier. Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) has some difficulties of his own with information technology.


In view of the alarmist comment in the press earlier this week on the millennium bug, and given that the Leader of the House referred to a statement earlier, I wonder whether we are shirking our responsibility by not having a proper debate on the Government's preparations for the millennium bug. I believe that the Government have taken the problem seriously, in sharp contrast to the Conservative party, which had many years to prepare for the problem, particularly in respect of small and medium enterprises. May we have a debate in Government time on the problems of and preparations for the millennium bug?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the Government's preparations again. He is right to say that we substantially stepped up the procedures and preparations that we inherited from the Conservatives. I am prepared to be characteristically generous towards them and acknowledge that, as time goes on, it is more and more evident that everyone who is dealing with the issue realises that they should have started several years before they actually did. Certainly, those who began to make their preparations as long as ago as 1996 often now believe that it would have been better if they had begun earlier.
As long as the Conservative party refrains from trying to make silly points by trying to pretend that we diminished the programme that we inherited from it, I am prepared to recognise that it could not have been expected to foresee some of the issues that face us now. I cannot promise him that I will find time for a debate on the matter in the near future. As I told the hon. Member for South Staffordshire, I intend to keep the House informed and up to date about the Government's preparations.

Mr. Simon Burns: As the Government are committed to open government, and given the serious nature of the allegations in The Sunday Times and the whitewash by the Deputy Prime Minister, could the Leader of the House find time before we prorogue for a debate on early-day motion 1709—now, please?
[That this House expresses serious concern about the lack of a credible explanation of the interference by the honourable Member for Mansfield, the former Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the current Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at that Department, in planning applications in areas 140 miles outside his constituency; questions whether it is normal practice for parliamentary private secretaries to take up issues in other honourable Members' constituencies and on subjects covered by the department for which they are a parliamentary private secretary; and urges a full disclosure by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions of all papers, minutes of meetings and discussions concerning the Barnet Football Stadium and Belmont Riding Centre planning applications and a full investigation of this deeply unsatisfactory situation.]

Mrs. Beckett: I recall the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I think that he knows that the proper authorities in the House have made the inquiries that are called for, and that the matter has been cleared and my hon. Friend exonerated of any wrongdoing. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to substitute his judgment for that

of the proper authorities, all I can say is that I am afraid that I have more confidence in the authorities than I have in him.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I make a House of Commons point? It used always to be the situation that, when a Minister went on an important, significant visit abroad, he or she reported to the House of Commons. Against that background, could we not have on Monday a factual report from the Secretary of State for Defence about what he said in the Gulf and what Gulf states said to him, in order to clear up something that is giving great concern? We are told that Arab states are privately in favour of military strikes, but publicly not a single Arab country, nor Iran for that matter, supports military action now or within the next month. At the very least, the House of Commons deserves to be told what the situation is on this matter.

Mrs. Beckett: On the general House of Commons point that my hon. Friend makes, I am not sure how far back he is harking. I say that with great respect; I am not in any way attempting to put my hon. Friend down. Certainly it is my own feeling that, of latter years, Ministers in all Governments have travelled so much more extensively than used to be the case that, while proper reports are always made to the House on visits of major importance, if we were to attempt to have a report every time a Minister went overseas, we would have difficulty finding time to do anything else.
I certainly take the serious point that my hon. Friend makes. I say to him, as I have said to others, that there is a debate on defence matters this afternoon, and, if my hon. Friend is fortunate enough to catch the Chair's eye, he may have an opportunity to raise the matter to which he refers. I can assure him and the House that the Government will continue to bring all proper information before the House on developments in Iraq.

Mr. Michael Jack: Hardly a week goes by without some new revelation of disaster overcoming the project to rebuild and reorganise the Royal Opera house. Bernard Haitink, the musical director, has resigned, and there are rumours that Vivien Duffield, a major sponsor, is withdrawing funding. The artists are in disarray over what their contractual future will be. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to come to the House of Commons and tell us once and for all what on earth is going on with the project, before we find that the only performances to come from its newly constructed stages are farces?

Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered questions on Monday, and, although matters continue to be discussed and meetings continue to take place, there has been no dramatic new development since then.

Mr. David Winnick: As regards talks with the Liberals, is it not a fact that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) tried to stay in office after the first election defeat in 1974 by trying to forge a coalition with the Liberals that did not come off? I am totally opposed to anything that might lead towards coalition government, and I have made my views clear.


May I ask my right hon. Friend this question about Iraq—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That is as classic an example of a non sequitur as I have heard at business questions.

Mr. Winnick: As regards business next week—which might be a more appropriate way of putting it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House bear in mind the necessity of a statement on Iraq? Although only one Labour Member has so far expressed a view, many of us believe that the Iraqi dictator has shown the most blatant defiance both of the agreement he signed at the end of the war in 1991 and of the further agreement which he signed with the Secretary-General of the United Nations in February, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) referred.
Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House aware that the brutal terror in Iraq continues? Reports that appear to be totally reliable have emerged stating that, only last month, 122 political prisoners were murdered in a prison just outside Baghdad. That is an illustration of the terror that continues in that country.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right in what he says, both about the situation in Iraq and about the way in which Saddam Hussein has continually broken his word, including most recently to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. I can give him the assurance he seeks, that the Government will do everything we can to keep the House informed. I know that hon. Members are concerned about the condition of the Iraqi people; however, I understand that Iraqi television reveals that the leadership continue to be well fed.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House give some guidance on how the Government intend to handle the Northern Ireland legislation, given that there are a significant number of amendments? Are we again to rush through the House legislation that we have not really thought out? In addition, I ask for a statement to be made in the near future that will allow the House to examine the implications of certain decisions taken in other places: for example, the attempt in Birmingham to camouflage Christmas by calling it "Winterval"; and the guidance being given to people in Northern Ireland that it is not right to display in places of work Christmas cards with scriptural texts on them, and that cars with GB plates showing that the owner has been abroad should not be parked in business car parks lest they cause offence. Surely that is carrying things to an unworthy extent?

Mrs. Beckett: It is my understanding that there might be a significant number of amendments to the Northern Ireland legislation, and I also understand that that causes concern. I assure the hon. Gentleman that one of the developments in the House that I have long deplored is the way in which, over the years, we have had more and more substantial numbers of amendments to legislation, instead of getting the legislation right in the first place. If we are able to implement some of the previous recommendations of the Select Committee on the

Modernisation of the House of Commons in respect of pre-legislative scrutiny and so on, we might avoid that sort of thing in future.
However, I know that the hon. Gentleman recognises, as does the whole House, that the Northern Ireland legislation is a rather special case, having been devised over a relatively short period in order to deal with a fast-moving situation. In those circumstances, some amendment is inevitable. I fear that I am not familiar with the other issues he raises, but I assure him that opportunities to raise those matters in the House will continue to be available.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If any statement is to be made about the Lib-Lab arrangements, can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House have a word with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister before it is made and explain to him that many of us are against making such tinpot arrangements with the rag, tag and bobtail sitting opposite?
Notwithstanding all that, even if someone was in favour of some sort of loose arrangement, the last thing to do would be to arrange matters with that broken reed of a man, the leader of the Liberal Democrats. The man is under challenge from at least three or four of his colleagues, and they are rowing among themselves.
May I remind my right hon. Friend that, between 1976 and 1978, there was a less loose arrangement of a Lib-Lab pact? It ended in tears, when the Liberals ran away with the ball and would not play any longer. The problem was that it got a little hot in the kitchen, and they could not stand it. They are totally unreliable, and the sooner we get rid of that barmy idea, the better. What is more, if it carries on for any length of time, stop their Short money.

Mrs. Beckett: I take that as a further request for a debate on the matter, which I am unable to grant.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Is it possible for the Leader of the House to arrange a debate on the principles of democracy? That would give us an opportunity to discuss the supine way in which the leader of the Liberal Democrats is being led by the nose to the Cabinet table to get his marching orders from the Prime Minister.
It would also allow us to consider more closely and contrast the way in which the leader of the Conservative party in Wales was elected on Tuesday by one man, one vote, involving all party members, with what is happening in the Labour party in Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales, who showed no interest in the Welsh Assembly, is being parachuted in by the party leadership, who are complete control freaks and are afraid of someone else getting their hands on the reins in the Welsh Assembly. They are also considering giving the Labour party membership just half a say in the matter. Since when has democracy meant one person, half a vote?

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's final brilliant remark was lost on me, and as for his opening remark, I should have thought that somebody who was supine could not be led anywhere. The hon. Gentleman lectures the House on democracy. We need no lectures on that from the Conservative party. I remind the


hon. Gentleman that there would be no devolution and no such elections if Conservative Members had had their way.

Shona McIsaac: I also ask my right hon. Friend seriously to consider having a debate on democracy, not on the drivel coming from the Conservative party but on House of Lords reform, so that we can finally put an end to the ludicrous ping-pong game that we are playing with important legislation at the moment.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. A good example of the Conservatives' attitude to democracy is that they agreed in 1911 that it was unsuitable for the hereditary principle to be a reason for membership of another place, but, 87 years later, they have not done a thing about it.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I reinforce the requests from around the Chamber for an early statement on Iraq. The Leader of the House said that the situation was unchanged. She is perhaps unaware that, last night, the United Nations met to discuss the evacuation of personnel from the country. Will she ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to say whether any British nationals remain in Iraq, and assure us that we will not face a repetition of the Gulf war when Saddam Hussein made use of the so-called human shield?
Will the right hon. Lady also ensure that time is available to discuss the legal basis for possible British intervention, so that, if and when British forces are used to enforce the will of the UN and the international community, the whole House can be in agreement and give our forces the full support they deserve?

Mrs. Beckett: I find it inconceivable that there would be circumstances in which the House would not give support to British forces. All I can say to the hon. Lady is that we have continued meticulously to keep the House informed. I accept that discussions continue day by day, but the position remains unchanged, in that Saddam Hussein is in breach of his obligations and the Government continue to insist and reiterate with our allies that he must come back into compliance. I assure the hon. Lady and the House that every effort will be made to keep the House informed.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about Ministers who have been abroad coming back and telling us about their experiences, will the Leader of the House confirm that it is the intention of the Deputy Prime Minister, when he returns from slaving away in Buenos Aires, to give us a statement on carbon emissions and what progress has been made internationally on global warming?

Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend says, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is in Buenos Aires, where discussions are continuing. I thank my hon. Friend for his concerns and his suggestion that a statement might be made in the House, but, as it is not yet clear what conclusions will come from those discussions, it is a little

premature to conclude whether there will be material to report to the House. I shall bear his remarks in mind, and draw them to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Can the right hon. Lady really not find time for a debate on democracy? The problem is that the belief on the Treasury Bench seems to be that democracy is one man, one vote—so long as that man happens to be the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Beckett: On these Benches, the position is—and long has been—that we believe in one Member, one vote. Women have the vote in the Labour party.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate the report that emanated yesterday from the House of Lords, which was dismissed by the Home Office without a nanosecond of consideration? That report was delivered not by a group of drug-crazed teenagers but by senior scientists, and has been described as authoritative, compassionate and wise.
The message sent from Parliament—which conducts much of its activities in alcohol-drenched rooms that are filled with smoke—is that it is against drugs. Yesterday, Parliament re-declared its war on people with cancer or multiple sclerosis who suffer serious pain. Will the Government explain why they believe that those who seek relief from pain are criminals? Can we not examine the posture adopted by the Home Office, which many of us believe to be not only premature but deeply stupid and cruel?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's long-standing concern about this matter. I understand also his concern for those who believe that this drug might help them. However, it is right and consistent that the Government should take the view that research must be carried out in this area. I accept that my hon. Friend believes that we should take a decision before the results of that research are known, but he will know that that is not the Government's view.
It has been made plain that, if and when a cannabis-based medicine is developed and shown to meet established standards in terms of safety and so on, the matter could be reconsidered. I understand my hon. Friend's concern—particularly for those who are in distress or pain—but the Government have considered the matter most carefully, and do not feel able to take the course of action that he recommends.

Mr. Robert Syms: May I echo the calls from both sides of the Chamber for a debate on the concordat between the Government and the Liberal party? That would provide an opportunity to explore fully the rumour circulating the Palace that the Liberals will have to rename themselves the Liberal doormat party.

Mrs. Beckett: I have nothing to add to what I said before about the unlikelihood of a debate on that matter.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a further debate on employee rights? Following the implementation of legislation such as the working time directive, some of my constituents have reported that some employers are trying to evade their


responsibilities under those new directives. Indeed, some employees feel intimidated against acting to ensure that they secure their entitlements under the law. They are concerned that measures passed by this place will not be available to them because of threats by their employers.

Mrs. Beckett: It is always a source of concern if people feel that their rights may be at risk or that there is some danger of those rights being denied. My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the improvements that the Government have made in access to fair treatment at work. We shall continue to work on those matters.

Mr. John Bercow: Further to the pertinent inquiries by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will the Leader of the House find time for an early statement or debate about the proposed allocation of Short money in light of the announced engagement between the Government and the Liberal Democrats?
The right hon. Lady will be aware that, to all intents and purposes, on the subjects of education, health, social security and European Union policy, the Liberal Democrats will not oppose the Government. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the purpose of Short money is specifically to assist the work of a major party that seeks to oppose the Government, and not to assist parties that are—metaphorically at least—kissing, cuddling and fawning over the Government?

Mrs. Beckett: I am touched by the enthusiasm of the Conservative party for Short money—which was, of course, introduced by a Labour Government to support the better working of the House, and which the Conservatives showed considerable reluctance to improve in any way when they were the Government and we were the Opposition.
The hon. Gentleman's entire question appears to be based on a false premise. If he believes that the Liberal party is supporting everything that we are doing on health and education, never mind on the handling of economic and monetary union, he has not been listening in this place.

Mr. Graham Brady: In response to earlier questions, the Leader of the House suggested that the proposed merger between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats was confined to some policy areas, or some departmental areas. May I add my voice to the calls for a proper debate on the implications of the merger? In those policy areas, it would obviously be inappropriate for them to have continued representation on Select Committees and other Committees of the House in the proportion that they have at the moment.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not know how the Conservative Opposition would manage if they were asked to take up more places on Committees, because—thanks to the judgment of the electorate—there are, comparatively speaking, so few Conservative Members. However, I repeat that I do not intend to find time for a debate on the matter; and as there has been no merger, there would be nothing to debate.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Lady said that she got slightly lost with my second original question. Therefore, will she answer a specific point that I put to her? Can she name a single Labour Back Bencher who enthusiastically supports the closed-list system?

Mrs. Beckett: Yes, of course. That system is supported by all Labour Members, who are well aware that that it is simple and straightforward. However, the main point is that, if Conservative Members—as they do—continually talk about democracy, they make it plain that they do not understand it. The choices that were made on the operation of the system as it is to be applied to the European elections, were made democratically in the Labour party by members of our party, not by the leadership.

New Variant CJD

Mr. Alan Duncan: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the Government's reaction to new findings about the risks associated with new variant CJD.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): First, I apologise to the House for the delay in responding to this private notice question, which was caused by the fact that the computers in the Department went down when the young woman concerned was trying to type from my manuscript so that I could provide a decent copy for everyone.
Since I became Secretary of State, I have ensured that any recommendations from the experts who advise me on ways to reduce any risk of transmission of new variant CJD are implemented promptly and made public.
As far as I am aware, there are no new findings to report to the House about new variant CJD, but I can bring the House up to date on developments this year and the action that I have taken.
Following the development of BSE in the national herd and the identification of new variant CJD, the previous Government were advised that the human disease was probably linked to exposure to BSE. Since new variant CJD was identified, 31 cases have been notified to the Department of Health—three in 1995, 10 in 1996, 10 in 1997 and eight cases so far this year. Whenever there have been any new developments, I have sought expert advice on what I should do. I have taken that advice, instigated prompt action, found the necessary funds and made public what I have done.
In November 1997 I was advised that there was a possibility, however small, that new variant CJD could be transmitted through blood. I sought the expert advice of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, and warned the National Blood Authority that it should be prepared to take all necessary steps to introduce the removal of white blood cells from the blood supply—a process called leucodepletion—should that be necessary. I made that information public and said at the time that it was better to be safe than sorry.
In February, I was advised by the Committee on Safety of Medicines that, as a precautionary measure, the use of United Kingdom-sourced plasma in the manufacture of blood products should be phased out. The committee went on to review each individual blood product licence, and on 13 May confirmed that all those products should be manufactured from plasma sourced from abroad. I have already authorised that action, at an estimated cost of about £30 million. At the same time, the committee emphasised that until safe new supplies made from non-UK sources were available, it was essential to maintain sufficient supplies of UK products for the national health service.
Anti-D immunoglobulin is used on mothers who are rhesus negative to prevent the serious condition of haemolytic disease in newborn babies, which can lead to fatalities or the babies being seriously handicapped by cerebral palsy or deafness.
There has always been a worldwide shortage of anti-D immunoglobulin. It has therefore taken longer to obtain sources of plasma to use for anti-D from non-UK sources

than in the case of other blood products. That was known to the Committee on Safety of Medicines when it gave its advice. The scarcity arises because the donors are rare and must be specially immunised before they can produce anti-D blood. That obviously takes time. Sources have now been identified and those products should be available in a few months.
In July, SEAC advised me that Leucodepletion for blood transfusions might reduce the theoretical possibility of the transmission of nvCJD through blood, and the blood service has been instructed to introduce leucodepletion as soon as possible. I made that public; the estimated cost is £70 million.
One of the difficulties in handling this issue is that there is no known test for nvCJD and no certainty about the size of the epidemic. No one yet knows whether we face a small number of cases or a large number. Experts have been looking into that since cases were first identified.
Following the recent identification of prions in the appendix that had been removed from a patient who later died of nvCJD, I have asked scientists to draw up arrangements for a survey of human tissue held by hospitals throughout the country, in an effort to help to determine the extent of nvCJD in the general population. In line with our usual policies, that was announced on 27 August.
That discovery also raised the possibility of the transmission of nvCJD by surgical instruments during commonplace operations. SEAC advised that the risk was minimal, and to date I have not been advised to take any action on that aspect. The expert committees are reviewing the issue, and I will take any further action should they so advise. In the meantime, I have authorised work to identify measures that could be taken to reduce the risk of infection being transmitted by surgical instruments, should that be deemed necessary.
New variant CJD is a new disease which poses new problems. As I said, we have no idea of the extent of the disease or how it is transmitted. The advice that I receive tries to balance the risks of CJD, which are at present unquantifiable, with the certainty of death or injury if blood products and transfusions were not available or if surgery were restricted.
At all times, I have sought expert advice, acted promptly on that advice, made the advice public and found the necessary extra funds. Today, the Medicines Control Agency, following consultation with the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, stated:
This is not a new story. The issues have been considered in depth by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines which has given its advice to the Government which has been fully followed. The Committee on the Safety of Medicines has kept the matter under continuous review and is satisfied with all the actions that have been taken.

Mr. Duncan: I accept the Secretary of State's apology for the delay, and I am grateful for his statement, but on this issue the devil is in the detail and there is still much more to learn.
Will the right hon. Gentleman now widen the scope of the national BSE-CJD inquiry to cover the handling of events since 1997? In particular, why did the Government choose to consider beef on the bone a much greater risk than that posed by surgical instruments, bearing in mind the fact that SEAC and the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens assessed the risks respectively as "minimal" and "very small"?


Is it not the case that, in April, the right hon. Gentleman promised the House, as he sacked the head of the national blood service, that all British-derived blood products would be banned by September this year? Can he confirm that the Department of Health now privately concedes, as he appears now to have confirmed, that many of the potential sources of nvCJD transmission will continue to be used on NHS patients until next summer?
The right hon. Gentleman, in his response to my written question on autoclave sterilisation, recognised the expert guidance that routine sterilisation procedures are insufficient to destroy the infective agent of nvCJD. What action is his Department taking to modify autoclave practices to ensure the proper destruction of the prion protein in the light of this finding? His earlier written answer was brilliantly obtuse.
If the Department is aware that four of those who have so far died from nvCJD were also blood donors, what efforts has it made to trace and destroy this potentially infectious blood and all the associated products? Such action has already been taken in the United States; why not here as well?
We now also have two clusters of nvCJD infection, one near Ashford and one near Leicester. What assessment has the Department made of those clusters; and what efforts has it made to identify whether there is a common source for the infection?
Will the right hon. Gentleman today issue a list of all products that are at risk of contamination with nvCJD, and will he immediately ensure that alternatives to British-derived anti-D and gamma globulin are made available as soon as possible? Patients need to know the risks and they need to exercise an informed choice. We are dealing here with people, not cattle.
What happens if the risk is not theoretical and is proven? That is the very risk which has now been identified. In the meantime, thousands of women and others are being put at risk.
The right hon. Gentleman must not tell the House that, for a price, he can acquire anti-D. He must acquire it—will he now do so? And if there is no shortage of gamma globulin, why has he not already acquired it?
My recent written questions to the Department and work done by the Daily Express have, I detect, flushed out some reluctance to make a clear statement to the House, and has shown a Department that is near paralysed in deciding what to do.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that funds will be specially available and that no NHS trust will be financially burdened as a result of tackling the problem?
There are clearly problems of which the general public has, until now, been unaware, and which have caused profound consternation within the Department. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have been asking parliamentary questions now for more than a fortnight, and it is only the Opposition's questions which have induced him to make this long overdue statement.
I have already written to the right hon. Gentleman and today the issue has been raised in the House. We will co-operate with him fully, but today we want answers to these questions. Will he give a personal undertaking to keep Britain fully informed at all stages?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman started off on the right lines when he said that we have much more to learn. I made that clear in my statement. We do not know how many people are suffering from nvCJD and it is unlikely that we will know for several years, despite the efforts of scientists who were put on to the job by my predecessors. That is no criticism of either the scientists or my predecessors. It is a difficult task. Furthermore, we do not know how new variant CJD arises or is transmitted, so it is extremely difficult to deal with.
However, it is simply not true that any truthful information that has appeared recently in the newspapers is new. All the information that I have given today, and all the information that has appeared in the newspapers, has come from information that I have deliberately placed on the public record since November last year when this issue first arose, because I am determined to ensure that everyone knows as much as the Department of Health about new variant CJD and how we may or may not be able to deal with it.
Thus, no new information is available. Information has been made available by me or my Department at every stage in the proceedings. On receiving advice, we have acted on it and, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have found the money to do everything that we have been advised to do. There is no question of not finding the money or of anything being held back because of lack of funds; but there are practical problems in getting from abroad plasma that can be used in blood products. I freely admit that that has proved to be more difficult than I was advised it would be when I told the House that I hoped that everything would be done by September this year. I regret that everything was not done by September, but I accept the practical problems and delays that have arisen.
On the sterilisation of equipment, as I said in my statement, which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) appeared to ignore, I have already asked my officials to get on as best they can with looking at ways of preventing or reducing the likely spread of new variant CJD through medical instruments, in case the experts advise me to do that. That includes looking not just at autoclaves but at other methods of sterilisation and, in some cases, possibly changing the design and structure of instruments used during operations. Some of them, however, are immensely complex and would be difficult to make any safer or less liable to carry infections.
As for the 31 people who have died from new variant CJD, the latest figure that I have is that four of them had donated blood. That blood has been tracked down and, where it was not used, it has been destroyed. We are therefore not remiss compared with other countries: we got on with that.
SEAC is looking into the Ashford and Leicestershire clusters to see whether there appears to be a pattern or an explanation for them. To date, it has been unable to come up with an explanation. One of the problems with new variant CJD is that explanations are thin on the ground because no one has yet formulated them.


In trying to ensure that the public know the risks, I have made every bit of information that has been available to me available to them. The problem is that I cannot assess the risks, and nor can the public, because we do not know the incidence of new variant CJD. We do not know whether the risk is high or low. No one can make any sort of formulation. When I arrived in the Department I asked whether there were any estimates and was told that computer modelling had been done by scientists. The figures ranged from 30 to several hundred thousand cases. My view was that those were not computer models but guesses. They may have been sophisticated guesses, but that is what we are reduced to.
We have no way of identifying the risks. I emphasise again that people who have suffered serious injury and need major surgery, or are in a condition that requires the replacement of their blood or the use of a blood product, face immediate death or injury if they do not get treatment using blood products or a blood transfusion.
We are doing our best to make sure that blood products and blood used in transfusions are as safe as possible. The experts who advise me are trying to balance out the unquantifiable risk of transmitting new variant CJD against the certainty that people who need a massive blood transfusion will die if they do not get it. We are cleaning up blood products and the blood supply as quickly as possible, and the only restraint is the practicalities—it is nothing to do with finance, and it has been nothing to do with Government delays.

Jacqui Smith: I declare both a personal and a constituency interest: first, a family in my constituency tragically lost one of its members to new variant CJD; secondly, like many women in my constituency, I have recently had an anti-D injection.
Although I recognise the hard work that has undoubtedly been carried out in the Department of Health by my right hon. and hon. Friends, does my right hon. Friend accept that uncertainty surrounding the safety of anti-D injections will result in some women refusing them, thereby putting future pregnancies at risk? Can he assure me that swift action will be taken to ensure the safety of the anti-D injection, to protect women and babies?

Mr. Dobson: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance—the swiftest possible action is being taken. Women who are faced with the choice should seek the advice of the clinicians who are dealing with them and, if they feel so inclined, take that advice. I cannot give general advice from the Dispatch Box, because it will be dependent in part on the needs and circumstances of each woman, and it is up to her and her clinician to decide what is best. I wish that they did not face that dilemma, but they do, and we are trying to deal with it as fast as humanly possible.

Dr. Peter Brand: Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, or the new variant, is a ghastly disease, and I welcome the Government's response to today's question.
It is important that people realise that science does not have the answer to every question, and that there is uncertainty, but it is also important that people be given facts. They should be given facts in a balanced way, however, and I despair at headlines such as "230,000 at

risk from CJD jab". Apparently, that was published at the instigation of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). It is disgraceful to use such a serious issue purely for party political purposes—especially for a party that denies that there is any risk whatever.
There is just as much uncertainty over eating beef on the bone. Conservative Members were right when they said that the Government were overreacting on beef on the bone, but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot, on the one hand, say, "We've got to do everything to be as sure as possible"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he should be putting a question to the Secretary of State.

Dr. Brand: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the way this issue has been presented is not in the interest of the public health of this nation? There may be uncertainty over some blood products, but there is absolute certainty about the risk of hepatitis acquired abroad and about the handicapping and death of rhesus babies. It is frightfully important that we get this absolutely right, and I welcome the way the right hon. Gentleman is treating that particular concern.

Mr. Dobson: I thank the doctor for a question based on his professional knowledge and concern. What I do not like is the challenge which some of the coverage represents to the integrity of a substantial number of hard-working people who are trying their level best to identify the level of risk and how we deal with it—not to mention a substantial number of public officials who have rightly been used to the idea that our blood supplies were generally better and safer than any supplies elsewhere in the world.
These people have been forced by circumstances for which neither they nor we are responsible to seek alternative sources for plasma from abroad, in some cases from countries that we would not normally have associated with particularly high standards of blood supplies. But they have been determined—and I have backed them up—that, when plasma is sought from, in particular, the United States, both premises and processes must be vetted in advance by experts from the Medicines Control Agency to ensure that the supplies meet our standards. All that takes time, but it is time well spent if we can ensure that alternative supplies are as safe as it is possible to make them, in the face of a problem which—as I have said—has arisen through the fault of no one in the Chamber, and which is, at the moment, literally unquantifiable.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My right hon. Friend is dealing with a subject that we all well understand will be difficult to explain fully. There will be a lot of uncertainty about putting out messages when perhaps they should be held back. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that one thing is certain? When the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) talked of putting down a few questions, it crossed my mind that it would have been very handy if a few Tory Back Benchers had put down a few questions in the past, when certain things were happening under a Tory Government who allowed this scandal to continue.


Does my right hon. Friend recall that we had not just one ministerial statement on that fateful day, but two? Such was the enormity of the problem—the Tories had covered it up for so long—that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Health had to answer questions on the same day. I have never seen that happen before, in all the 28 years I have been a Member of Parliament. Now the Tories are coming along and trying to give the impression that a Labour Government are at fault.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British people will consider the issue to be a question of trust? They did not trust the Tories in this regard; they kicked them out. They will agree with my right hon. Friend in that, as long as Ministers are straight and transparent and make statements to the House, they will believe what those Ministers say.

Mr. Dobson: I can tell my good and hon. Friend that, ever since I began my current job, I have tried to ensure that all information on matters such as this is made public as soon as reasonably possible. I have followed that to the letter. I have been so anxious to ensure that written questions receive accurate answers that I have insisted on their being vetted by the Chief Medical Officer himself, so that the answers are accurate, professionally sound and based on information that has been checked by someone whose integrity is unchallengeable.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I note that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is sitting on the Front Bench near the Secretary of State. Will the Secretary of State confirm that his statement has no implications for British farmers, and will he reaffirm his confidence in British beef?

Mr. Dobson: Yes, indeed. I think that my good, close and right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is sitting here because he is a friend of mine—and I am glad that he is.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: What are the prospects of developing a test for CJD in blood donations? I know that a prion is different from a virus, but I understand that blood donations are screened for HIV and hepatitis. Given the history of BSE, should not the former Government, 10 years ago, have put 10 times as much effort into developing a test for BSE in live animals?

Mr. Dobson: I am here to answer questions on behalf of the present Government, and in relation to my stewardship. I can only say that substantial scientific efforts are being put into identifying a biopsy test for CJD. At present, it is only possible to be sure that someone died of new variant CJD by examining the brain after death; so any steps that can be taken to develop a test are very welcome.
As I said, all this has been going on since before we came to office. I hope that the scientists will come up with something, but it is proving very difficult, just as it has proved very difficult to come up with a live test

for BSE. The sooner we can discover such a test, the better: it would transform the situation, because it would enable blood supplies and so forth to be made a good deal safer. We have provided funds. I believe, for instance, that we are providing funds for Dr. Dealler, who is occasionally quoted in the newspapers. He is looking for a test, but as yet he has not found one.

Mr. Christopher Gill: The House will have noted the Secretary of State's comments about the need to advise the public about the degrees of risk associated with CJD. In answer to a question about beef on the bone, the Minister for Public Health told me that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee had said—in relation to the inadvisability of beef on the bone continuing to be sold—
that there was a 95 per cent. chance of no cases of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease and a 5 per cent. chance of one case arising from this exposure in 1998."—[Official Report, 13 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 84.]

The next day, 14 July 1998, the Minister said that, reporting on peanut allergy, the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment had said that it was "potentially life-threatening", and advised that families with a history of allergic disease should avoid peanuts as a "sensible precautionary measure".
Is the Secretary of State satisfied that his Department is being entirely consistent and evenhanded in taking measures to deal with risks to human health across the board?

Mr. Dobson: Yes.

Mr. Mark Todd: Does not this sorry episode demonstrate the frailty of human knowledge? Does it not show that scientists do not know the answers to many of the questions that trouble us, including the question of the interaction of animal and human health?
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's statement. I note that he has been meticulous in taking measures to deal with public health, that he has been open about the process and that he has consulted, and then followed medical advice to the letter. Does that not contrast with the behaviour of Opposition Members who were in charge at the beginning of the affair?

Mr. Dobson: I do not really want to go into that. Let me just say that I think officials in my Department are better pleased to be operating under a regime that tells the truth and tells it quickly, acts on the advice that it receives and finds the funds to make that possible. They do seem, from time to time, to contrast that regime with what they had to put up with before.

Mr. John Randall: Has the Department of Health been able to establish how many of the 31 known victims of new variant CJD had had operations or invasive surgery on the national health service? If so, has the Secretary of State taken any action to trace other people who may be at risk after such surgery?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly sensible question. The CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh is carrying out minute examinations of the medical history of all the 31 people who have died—the 31st was announced today. One person—the one from Torbay—had an appendix removed prior to developing any symptoms of new variant CJD as it was understood at the time. Prions that could be related to new variant CJD were identified in material from that appendix, which, in line with the practice of every hospital, was preserved for precisely such survey purposes.
The unit is now examining the histories of the 30 other people, but I do not have the latest information on whether those people had had operations immediately before it was noticed that they may have been suffering from CJD or new variant CJD.

Points of Order

Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may not have been drawn your attention that the detailed, important and complicated answer given by the Secretary of State for Health this afternoon—which we all welcome—was made available in its full text to the media but not to Front-Bench or Back-Bench Members. It is extremely difficult for hon. Members to deal with such a statement in those circumstances.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Madam Speaker has on a number of occasions pointed out that it is helpful if hon. Members have the fullest information as early as possible. I understand that there was a particularly difficult situation in the Department of Health this afternoon, which may have contributed to the problem.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My understanding of custom and practice is that when Ministers make a statement, that statement is made available, but when they are responding to a private notice question, the text is not usually made available to hon. Members. I have no reason to deny any of the information to anyone. I shall obviously have to consult the business managers on whether any changes should be made in the practice that we inherited from the previous Government, which they, no doubt, inherited from the Government before them. It has always been customary to make the information available to the press.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will it now be a convention that answers to questions are given to the Press Gallery before they are given to hon. Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Leader of the House will have heard those exchanges. I should tell hon. Members that I did not have a copy of the answer either.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been a Member of this House for 36 years and it is painful to express unhappiness at the judgment of someone who has been a parliamentary colleague for a quarter of a century and a political friend for 30 years. We have had a statement on CJD, which I do not doubt is important, but a request was also made for an urgent response to yesterday's meeting of the emergency committee of the United Nations. That meeting could lead to the bombing of infrastructure, which is a matter of enormous urgency.
Will you convey to the Speaker our absolute dismay? Before bombs rain down on Iraqi infrastructure, the House of Commons should at least have the opportunity


to pursue the facts. I had better not try to camouflage the fact that this is a criticism of the Speaker. It comes from the third most senior Member—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman said, he has been a Member of this House for a long time, but I am obliged to refer him to "Erskine May", which states:
Neither the submission of a private notice question nor its subsequent rejection by the Speaker should … be publicly referred to.

That must be an end to the matter.

The Royal Navy

[Relevant documents: The Eighth Report from the Defence Committee of Session 1997–98, on the Strategic Defence Review (HC 138-I).]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): It is a great privilege to open this debate on the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, the first on the subject since February 1996. I begin by paying tribute to the impressive qualities of those who serve in the those forces. I have seen those qualities at naval establishments across the United Kingdom, from the Clyde submarine base in the north to Plymouth and Poole in the south, and on warships—I was on board HMS Westminster when she was undergoing operational sea training. I have seen the commitment to duty, to the proud traditions of the service and to the central role that our naval forces play in safeguarding the freedoms that we all enjoy.
As I have visited ships and bases around the country, I have been struck by the professionalism, dedication, enthusiasm and team spirit of everyone whom I have met. Those qualities are at the core of the success of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. They are embodied in an ethos on which the foundations of our naval service depend.
Royal Navy ships continue to be widely deployed around the world in support of our defence missions and tasks. On an average day, up to 60 per cent. of ships are on operations away from their base port. Their contribution is immense, ranging from the maintenance of the continuous at-sea deterrent patrol and our contribution to the NATO standing naval forces to fishery protection.
In the past year, the Navy and the Marines have been ready to assist in the evacuation of British citizens from countries where their lives may have been at risk—Sierra Leone, Albania, Indonesia and the Congo. Naval forces have assisted in counter-drugs operations, both in the United Kingdom and overseas. The fact that that commitment is now included as a military task is a reflection of the high priority that the Government attach to the fight against illegal drugs trafficking.
The Royal Navy is also involved in ensuring the security of our overseas territories. The programming of ships to the Atlantic patrol task will result in greater flexibility but will not be detrimental to a visible presence, when it is required, in the south Atlantic, in the Caribbean or off west Africa. Operations in the Caribbean are primarily focused on counter-drugs operations but they also enable the Navy to respond to natural disasters during the hurricane season. The House will be aware that, in the past month, HMS Sheffield has provided humanitarian relief in the West Indies following Hurricanes George and Mitch, which had such devastating effects in central American, especially in Honduras.
Our operational structures change as the situation changes. All our armed forces have recognised the importance of joint action, and I commend the Royal Navy for its forward-thinking and open-minded approach in the strategic defence review. It considered first and foremost how it could evolve to enhance its contribution to overall defence. It thought joint, not single


service. The new concept recognises the unpredictable nature of today's world and the importance of being able to respond quickly to a crisis with joint and rapidly deployable forces; it recognises the reach, self-sufficiency and independence from host nation support that characterise maritime forces.
The Navy has already established Joint Force 2000— which the House discussed in our debate two or three weeks ago—with colleagues in the Royal Air Force, and it will come into operation next year. Joint Force 2000 will build on the successful experience of joint Harrier operations at sea to enhance the power projection capability of the Invincible class carriers. The force will be part of RAF Strike Command, with a Royal Navy rear admiral at its head but an RAF air commodore in day-to-day charge.
In the longer term, we will build on the Joint Force 2000 experience when the future carrier-borne aircraft comes into service on the new carriers in 2012, in line with current planning. There are other examples of jointery: 3 Commando Brigade is already an inherently joint force with Army units permanently under Royal Marines command. Jointery will also be utilised beyond the front line in logistics and materiel support.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Minister told us that he was proud of the Navy's examination of how it could increase its contribution to defence through the strategic defence review. How can cutting three frigates and two nuclear attack submarines—SSNs—help to achieve that?

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that, because he sat through the strategic defence review debate, in which we considered our future defence needs. It was recognised that, as a choice had to be made, our priority was to be able to deploy frigates in a concentrated way, rather than having the ocean coverage that is provided by the existing 35 frigates.
The same logic applies to SSNs. The hon. Gentleman will know that the emphasis of the design of the armed forces for the future, including the Navy, is to meet the operational needs that we think that the country will have. We believe that we will need a rapidly deployable force, and we have acted accordingly.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the Minister confirm that, right at the beginning of the strategic defence review, the Government said that there would be no more money for defence, so it did not matter what were the results of the SDR, or what were our foreign policy requirements? As there was no more money, the armed forces had to trim what they wanted to do.

Mr. Henderson: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman raises the subject of cuts in defence. I cannot recall how many such cuts were made by the previous Government, but I think that the cumulative effect was about a 30 per cent. cut over their last 10 years in office. I will not take any lessons from Conservative Members on cuts in defence. The SDR considered the allocation that is possible and that will meet our defence requirements, and we will choose priorities within that framework.
The Royal Navy provides our independent strategic nuclear deterrent, in the shape of the Trident force, which provides the fundamental guarantee of our security.

Our reliance on nuclear weapons has, of course, radically reduced since the end of the cold war, but the strategic defence review confirmed that nuclear deterrence still has a unique and essential contribution to make to our security and that of our allies.
The deterrent prevents nuclear coercion against us-we should never forget that there are a great many nuclear weapons in the world-and I believe that it will contribute to preserving peace and stability in Europe as we work towards global verifiable nuclear disarmament. With the withdrawal of our last remaining free-fall nuclear bombs, the Royal Navy now operates our only nuclear weapon system.
In the new strategic setting, we have been able to reduce the readiness of our trident force while maintaining continuous at-sea deterrent patrols. As a measure of our commitment to further nuclear de-escalation, the notice period regulating the operation of our nuclear weapons has been increased.
I know that the House will want to put on record our appreciation of the work of our Trident submariners. Any of us who have visited submarines will recognise the difficult conditions in which submariners work to serve their country.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: As my hon. Friend knows, Trident submarines are a familiar sight in my constituency. I want to know about the code of conduct governing the passage of those submarines through our traditional fishing grounds. On 21 August, an incident took place involving a nuclear submarine and affecting seven fishing vessels from Tarbert, Loch Fyne. A meeting was held on 22 October to discuss the incident. I pleaded with the Tory Government for years and years to have a code of conduct. Can we now have a review of that code and a revision of its rules, in the interests of our fishermen?

Mr. Henderson: I can reassure my hon. Friend that I take very seriously the code governing the way in which our submarines enter the Clyde-and elsewhere-on the way to the bases. I visited Faslane a few weeks ago and discussed the matter with naval personnel. I am not aware of the specific incident to which my hon. Friend refers. I shall look into it and write to him, but I can reassure him now about the principle: we want the highest safety standards to ensure that submarines do not collide with fishing boats or their kit.
I believe that we can improve submariners' conditions of service. The Royal Navy is investigating how such improvements, including the possibility of more port visits, can be made. I hope that the House will welcome the launch in September of the fourth Trident submarine. It has ensured our ability to guarantee a capability to maintain continuous patrols over the lifetime of the Trident force.
Defence diplomacy is increasingly important for all our armed services. HMS Marlborough's visit to Syria and HMS Somerset's visit to St. Petersburg are important examples of that work.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with the major part of procurement issues at the end of the debate, but I should like to refer to some of our equipment needs. In the strategic defence review, we stated our belief in a


world-class Navy equipped to do the job. We have to continue to modernise and improve our equipment. I can assure the House that we are doing that.
The type 23 frigate is one of the most modem surface combatants in the world. With the last three in the class currently in build, the type 23 will form the backbone of the Navy's surface fleet well into the next century.
HMS Ocean, our new helicopter assault ship, brings a new dimension to amphibious operations: an area in which the Royal Navy has unparalleled experience and expertise. We all witnessed the contribution that HMS Ocean made to the humanitarian effort in central America.
The Navy's air capability has benefited immensely from the upgrade of the Sea Harrier aircraft, and from the ability to fly Royal Air Force Harriers from the Invincible class carriers. The highly capable Merlin helicopter—representing the state of the art in naval rotary-wing aviation—enters service next month. Beneath the waves, our Swiftsure and Trafalgar class submarines remain among the quietest, most capable nuclear-powered submarines in operation today.
The strategic defence review confirmed current plans for future equipment as follows—three new astute class submarines to replace the swiftsure class; two new assault ships to replace HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid; and two auxiliary oilers to replace the current Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service ships, Olwen and Olna. We have plans to replace the type 42 destroyer; to update all our submarines to make them capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; and for a further four roll on/roll off ships that can provide the strategic lift we need to enable us quickly to deploy leading elements of the joint rapid reaction force.

Mr. John Burnett: I served in the original HMS Fearless, when it operated as a landing platform dock, for a short while when she was first commissioned. I notice that the Government will rightly replace the two LPDs with two further ships. Why, therefore, have the Government planned for only one new helicopter carrier—HMS Ocean—when that ship has already been used during its trials period? It is imperative that we have at least two helicopter assault carriers, and I ask the Minister to reconsider that point.

Mr. Henderson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I hope that he understands that we have to have priorities and make choices. We cannot have everything in this world. HMS Ocean is an excellent vessel, which is in trials at the moment, and will serve us all well. We have plans for two further carriers that will provide many of the facilities that Ocean provides, and many others. Those carriers, which were the subject of much discussion during the debate on the strategic defence review, are an essential part of our modern provision. They will carry a more powerful force of future carrier-borne aircraft—the successor to the Harrier.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister referred to the Tomahawk and I believe that we have a Tomahawk capability in the Gulf off Iraq. Can the Minister confirm that the information that is crucial to the targeting of the Tomahawk comes from UNSCOM?

Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend will understand that I am not prepared to cover such issues in today's debate.

I am happy to discuss the principles of targeting, but I am not prepared to go into detail and I know that the House does not expect me to do so.

Mr. Christopher Gill: rose—

Mr. Andrew Robathan: rose—

Mr. Henderson: I wish to make some progress.
I shall now deal with the issue of people in the Navy. The House has recognised previously that people are our most important asset in the armed forces and that is certainly true of the Navy. We put people first. We need to recruit more people into the Navy. We are currently 2,000 people short and we must close that gap. We shall do so by offering a first-choice career to those who have the potential to form part of our naval force.
The main shortfall categories are now among operator mechanics, Royal Marines and Sea Harrier pilots. The shortfall is being tackled on several fronts, but it will take some time to turn round. Our target is to achieve full staffing in the naval service by 2002.

Mr. Mike Hancock: Some 27 Harrier pilots requested to leave the service early in the past 12 months. Has the Minister discovered the reasons behind those requests from people who have been trained to a high level of proficiency? What can he do to get people, especially pilots, to stay in the Navy once they are fully trained?

Mr. Henderson: That is an important question and it has no easy answers. At the moment, we face an increase in demand for civil aviation pilots, and many—if not all—of the Navy's pilots have skills that make them an attractive proposition to any airline that is short of pilots. If the airlines are prepared to put a lot of goodies on the table—as I used to say when I was involved in industrial relations—it is hard for pilots to turn them down and hard for us to respond. We have recognised the problem; special arrangements have applied to pilots in the past, and that will probably continue. I assure the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) that the Government are doing what they can.
There is no single way to improve recruitment. A number of different approaches are necessary, ranging from national campaigns to targeted action on the ground, but we must be straight in what we say to potential recruits. Reality must match their perception. I hope that the wearing of uniforms in public will help to raise public confidence in our Navy.
The retention of trained personnel is also important. I have already mentioned Harrier pilots, but the Navy provides several other occupations that have alternatives in the civilian sector.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: What steps is the Minister taking to eliminate the constant drip-drip of scandal involving the deployment of Wrens at sea? Will he accept that such scandals undermine the ability of the Royal Navy to recruit the calibre of staff to which he refers?

Mr. Henderson: I do not whole-heartedly accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Much of the media can make


scandal where there is none, and they can get a small amount of scandal out of all proportion. I do not believe that there is more scandal in the relationships in any of our armed forces than among the population generally and I am taking steps to establish whether that is so.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: rose—

Mr. Henderson: I shall give way for the last time, because I wish to make progress more quickly.

Dr. Tonge: If recruitment is a problem for the Royal Navy, would it be helpful to lift the ban on homosexuals? Indeed, should not that ban be lifted in all the armed forces?

Mr. Henderson: As the hon. Lady knows, the Government have given a commitment that the policy on homosexuals serving in our armed forces will be discussed by the House in this Parliament. When we come to that debate, it is important that I ensure that the House is aware of all operational requirements so that it can take them into account when making its decision.
Earlier this week, we held a very successful equal opportunities conference. General Colin Powell was the keynote speaker and we heard also from Sir Herman Ouseley and Kamlesh Bahl. The conference took learning from experience as its theme, and it enabled the Government, and the armed forces, to underline, once again, the seriousness with which we view equal opportunities. The guarantee of an equal opportunities environment in the Navy is an important part of making sure that the reality meets the objective. People expect a working environment that promotes equality and fairness, and prejudice of any kind has no place in the Royal Navy. I know that the naval staff of all ranks are now taking part in our equal opportunity education at Shrivenham and I hope that that will make a telling contribution to improving the working environment.
We need more recruits from all of our communities, including more men and women from black and Asian communities. The most recent recruitment figures show a significant improvement. The number of black and Asian people who now want to join the Navy has increased from 1 to 2 per cent., although that is still unacceptably low. It is a major motivation of mine to give further momentum to that improvement. Our efforts were recognised last week when the naval service won a number of awards at the 1998 British diversity awards ceremony. The Second Sea Lord received a gold award and the work of other naval personnel in the recruitment of minorities was also recognised. I was especially pleased that the tri-service efforts to raise diversity awareness received recognition in the form of a gold award.
Women comprise 7.4 per cent. of the Navy, and they fill a wide range of posts. We announced in the SDR that we wanted to continue to maximise opportunities for women in all three services. We have opened up to women a further 1,300 specialist posts attached to the Royal Marines, which are filled by Royal Navy and Army personnel. We shall consider the position of women's service in submarines and as mine clearance divers.
The inquiry rate from members of the black and Asian community to join the service continues to increase. The recruiting target for this year was set at 2 per cent.

for those candidates, and we have hit it. We are also on track to hit that target for ethnic candidates for both officers and ratings.

Mr. Gill: Does not the process of setting targets for the recruitment of minorities sound very much like positive discrimination?

Mr. Henderson: It is not positive discrimination, but a recognition that we cannot fill all Navy posts unless we make them more attractive to a broader cross-section of our population. We shall not do that unless we go out to the whole community to say, "This is what it is like in the Navy. Come and join us." Our recruitment team is going out to communities from which we have historically been unable to attract people to the Navy. We are telling people that they can have a great life, and a first-choice career in the Navy. They can receive a good education, and we will take a zero-tolerance view of discrimination. We are beginning to have a an impact in those communities, bit by bit.

Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Henderson: No more.
I am pleased that our participation in the Notting Hill carnival was important in building links with ethnic communities. The service deals harshly with discrimination, as should any responsible employer, and it continues to review policies and practices so that they remain relevant and consistent with good employment practice. As in the other two services, a freephone harassment helpline has been introduced, and service personnel and their families may use it.
Following the strategic defence review, we have taken steps to improve education facilities for service personnel. New training and education initiatives will enable personnel to gain key skills and transferable qualifications for their return to civilian life. We also plan to introduce a scheme that will allow personnel to claim learning credits, which will offer financial support to service people for a learning purpose, both while they are serving and for some time afterwards.
As part of our welfare measures, we have established a families task force, which will address particular problems faced by service families in choosing housing and children's education. That is in line with our policy of caring for our people. Additionally, I am delighted to announce that we plan to give recognition and support to an association for Royal Navy and Royal Marines families. A number of naval families have expressed a wish to have an association to help represent their views and concerns, and the Navy is now working with them to help develop and agree their charter. They will be provided with headquarters accommodation, communication facilities and help with funding. The new association will be based in Plymouth.
The association should help dialogue between the naval service and naval families. It will be an adjunct to existing information and advice centres for wives and the naval personal and family service, which already provide community and personal support to families.
I shall say a word about the importance of our naval reserves and their contribution to operations. That contribution was fully recognised by the strategic defence


review, and the capability of both the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Marines Reserve will be significantly enhanced as a direct result of recommendations arising from the review. The staffing ceiling of the Royal Naval Reserve has been increased from 3,500 to 3,850—an increase of 10 per cent.—to enable reservists to be more widely available across the fleet.
As a result of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, we are now able to utilise reservists in a much more flexible way. Full-time reserve service, for example, is a relatively new form of reserve service which enables reservists to be employed to fulfil the same range of duties as a regular service person. That has proved to be an extremely valuable and well-utilised form of service with some 150 members of the Royal Naval Reserve employed in that way. They work alongside their regular service colleagues, both afloat and ashore, for periods of up to two years at a time.
Royal Naval Reserve personnel from the seaman, air, medical, interrogator and intelligence branches have supported, and continue to support, operations in Bosnia during the past year. The Royal Marine Reserve will continue to reinforce the regular Royal Marines command when required and provide a valuable nationwide infrastructure for regeneration and reconstitution in times of national emergency. As with the Royal Navy Reserve, a number of Royal Marine reservists are currently serving full time with their parent service or with the Royal Navy.
The strategic defence review has confirmed the place of our maritime and amphibious forces at the centre of the defence enterprise. We have backed that up with the equipment and the policies the Navy needs to do the job. The Navy has emerged from the review with a much more clearly defined concept of operations, a plan for a powerful and balanced front line, increased funding for some aspects of support and a strategy for dealing with the problems of overstretch. The result will be a naval service well prepared to face the challenges of the 21st century. The Navy and Marines deserve the House's support. I hope that it will get that support today.

Mr. John Maples: I welcome this debate, the third of the single service debates that have become part of the annual tradition of Parliament. May I chide the Minister ever so gently for the fact that four of the five days for defence debates have occurred during the past three and a half weeks?

Mr. Doug Henderson: indicated assent.

Mr. Maples: For his team's sake as well as my own I hope that we may be able in future to spread the debates a little more evenly over the year.

Mr. Henderson: I hope to meet the hon. Gentleman's wishes in that regard.

Mr. Maples: We have found something on which we can agree. I hope that not all the debates will fall on a Thursday—or at least on days such as today on which the North Atlantic Assembly is meeting, which may affect people's ability to attend.
I welcome discussions with the Government and with other parties on whether a proper format for the five days of defence debates might not continue to be two days for debate on the estimates, with the other three days perhaps split slightly differently so that each one does not necessarily focus on a single service. We are open to suggestion on that.
Events in Iraq are certainly hotting up. The Navy would be involved in action there. I do not intend to deal with Iraq in my speech, because the Minister clearly cannot deal with them tonight. However, if and when our forces go into action in the Gulf, I hope that there will be an immediate statement by the Secretary of State in the House so that we can cross-question him on what is happening, and on what policy is being pursued.
I have already apologised to Madam Speaker, and now do so to the House, for the fact that I have a long-standing speaking engagement—arranged before the debate was arranged—and I shall not be able to stay for the whole debate or to return for the winding-up speeches. I shall eagerly collect Hansard tomorrow to read the speeches that I have not heard.
Since the end of the cold war, we have seen a fundamental change in defence policy. Nowhere has that been more true than in our naval strategy. In some ways, we are returning to a more traditional defence policy of expeditionary forces and the use of naval power to support land operations. The 20th century has been somewhat continentalist, dominated by continental powers such as Germany, Russia and China, and that has dictated British naval planning and deployment. We were previously the great practitioner of maritime strategy based on naval predominance and expeditionary operations. From world war one, that changed. Continental issues dominated, and our naval strategy changed accordingly.
Since the end of the second world war, our naval deployment has been almost entirely configured for anti-submarine warfare in the north Atlantic, designed for the essential task of keeping open supply and communication lanes, and helping to maintain access to Europe for the United States fleet. The end of the cold war has, at least for the time being—though I doubt for all time—ended that continentalist situation. We no longer have to configure and deploy our forces solely to meet the Warsaw Pact threat. The new strategic environment demands the ability to respond flexibly and quickly outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation area. We must be able to respond to threats and challenges not only in Europe, but in the middle east, the Gulf and north Africa. That will involve joint force operations in conjunction with allies. Such a concept is far from new, but it was largely irrelevant during the cold war.
Forces will have to be able to provide a wide range of options: the ability to deploy, respond and reconfigure rapidly and flexibly, offering a range of military options to policy planners. Navies cannot respond as quickly as air forces or provide the territorial presence of an army, but those are not always the most important qualities required. Navies can reach most of the world. They can engage and disengage rapidly. They are largely self-sufficient. They can operate aircraft and land forces. They can operate without host nation approval or support. They can switch quickly from a diplomatic to an aggressive role. Those concepts have increasingly come


to influence defence policy over the past six years or so and they are carried forward in the strategic defence review.
We can already deploy a brigade-sized force. RAF GR7s can operate from carriers. HMS Ocean will add a whole new dimension. We can deploy a joint force headquarters at sea. The new landing platform docks on order will be able to land forces quicker and with greater air support.
The return to a more maritime strategy is the appropriate response to this situation. It involves a return to a more traditional British defence stance, but this time with far greater emphasis on joint operations. We in the Opposition support those aspects of the strategic defence review which carry that forward.
I shall take a moment to express the enormous admiration in which our Navy are held. They are constantly involved in deployments—in the south Atlantic, the Gulf and all over the world. They consistently acquit themselves with success and distinction. We are lucky to have them. Our duty as politicians is to ensure that they have the men, equipment and training to do what we ask of them.
That leads me to the issue of recruitment and retention. I understand that surface ships are sailing with crews about 5 per cent. short of their full complement on a fairly regular basis. Recruitment and retention are therefore vital. Undermanning leads to more frequent tours of duty, longer periods away from home and excessive workloads and that, in itself, causes people to leave early and makes recruitment difficult. It is a vicious circle which must be broken. In the past three years, far more people have left the Navy than have joined it. That must change. I know that the Government realise the seriousness of the matter and attach importance to solving the problem. We shall support them in their efforts, but we shall watch closely to see whether they achieve their aims.
Where better to begin my consideration of procurement issues than with the new carriers? These were and are the centrepiece of the strategic defence review. They were the most heavily leaked or trailed part of it. That document was especially heavily leaked and trailed by the Secretary of State's special adviser, who was comprehensively briefing the press on every aspect long before the House was told and the carriers were in the shop window. The carriers were what justified the cuts in money, men and equipment. In the case of the Navy, it was those new carriers that were to make up for the cuts in the number of submarines and surface ships. The Navy was paying today for promises of a great future in 15 years' time.
I expressed my doubt at the time that this Government would ever build the carriers and I still have doubts. The Treasury, whose bootprints are all over the review, will be back for more. As the Chancellor's public spending plans come under increasing pressure as the economy slows, so he will be back for more cuts in the defence budget.
Even I could not have expected that the Government were actively investigating an alternative option. On 7 September, just a few weeks after publication of the SDR, the Government advertised in the "Ministry of Defence Contracts Bulletin" for a study designed to extend the life of the existing carriers. It stated of the existing carriers:
conversion would be expected to extend the operational life of the Vessels for a period of 10 years from around 2012 to 2022.

That is wholly incompatible with launching two new carriers in 2012. The Government's bad faith has been there for all to see.
To be fair to the Secretary of State, I expect that that was imposed on him by the Treasury against his wishes. However, his explanations in the SDR debate were so pathetic that he could not have thought up the idea for himself. He did a manful job, pretending that standard practice was being followed and attempting to rubbish what was abundantly obvious to all—that the Government had been caught out in an act of breathtaking duplicity. How can it be standard practice to announce a firm procurement decision and then subsequently to announce a study for an alternative which would completely destroy the case for the original decision? It was a fatuous explanation and the Secretary of State knew it. It must have done immense damage to morale in the Royal Navy and dealt a terminal blow to the Secretary of State's credibility.
The Secretary of State must have come to the same conclusion because, in his first great climbdown of the year, he has abandoned part of those plans. In a further announcement in the same "Ministry of Defence Contracts Bulletin" of 4 November he sneaked out his climbdown in small print:
The Ministry of Defence now believes it can meet the study need without involving the shipbuilding/ship repair industry and the previous advertisement is thus withdrawn.
What a humiliation. What incompetence. What a climbdown. I can promise the Secretary of State that any further duplicity will be met by the same relentless exposure and questioning from the Opposition. It is unlikely that the climbdown would have taken place if we had not pursued the issue to the embarrassment of Ministers. I look forward to many more climbdowns, starting I hope on Monday with a change of heart about the Secretary of State's damaging plans for the Territorial Army.
Unfortunately, this climbdown cannot be seen to be the end of the matter because it appears that the studies are now to go ahead internally. How can these studies possibly be compatible with firm plans to build the carriers? The Secretary of State cannot bluster his way out of this one. If those studies show that the lives of our existing carriers can be extended within acceptable operational and financial parameters, what will happen? Logic dictates—from experience I know that the Treasury is logical—that the new carriers can be postponed for at least 10 years. That must be the case. I cannot believe that that option was not studied as part of the SDR and rejected. It is the sort of option that must be considered early on, not after an alternative major procurement decision has been taken. I do not think that Ministers even now are being straight with the House.
I have two simple questions which I hope that the Under-Secretary can answer in his reply. If they are not answered today, we shall continue to pursue them. First, is an internal study under way within the Ministry of Defence into the feasibility of converting the existing carriers to operate the joint strike fighter and extend their lives for 10 years until 2022? Secondly, if such a study concludes that this can be done, what will the Secretary of State do? If he intends to go ahead with the new carriers whatever the study says, why bother with the study? Is not the plain fact of the matter that if the study concludes that this option is feasible, he will have to take it and abandon the new carriers for at least 10 years?


The uncertainty is a serious matter. It is breeding morale problems in the Navy and it is entirely the fault of the Secretary of State, who refuses to stand up to a ridiculous request from the Treasury that appears to have been thrown in after the SDR was published.

Mr. Doug Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money, given operational needs—something that the study must also consider—were also taken by the previous Conservative Government? He talks about the Treasury being logical. He will know from his days at the Treasury that there was a 10 per cent. cut in defence expenditure during his years there.

Mr. Maples: Defence expenditure was cut at a time when the Labour Opposition were calling for far bigger cuts to the European average. The answer to the Minister's first question is no. I have asked Conservative Secretaries of State for Defence; indeed, we heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) intervene in the SDR debate to say that we did not do that. It is complete nonsense. If the Government have taken a decision to commission two new carriers what is the point of having a study to determine whether the old ones can be refitted to take the joint strike fighter? Surely one would answer that question before taking the decision to commit to two new carriers.
The question remains unanswered. Until the Government clear the matter up and say that they are not studying that as an option, people like me and many more people outside the House will have great difficulty in believing that the Government are committed to the two new carriers. They are the absolute centrepiece of the SDR and the Navy's part in it.
Let us assume that the Government will build the two new carriers. We currently have three carriers, but with major and minor refits we can guarantee only one on active service at any one time. Ark Royal is about to have a major refit and lies totally unfit for service at Portsmouth. Illustrious is also there in a dry dock undergoing extensive work that will not be completed until April. Only Invincible is available for service. If we have only two carriers, what will happen? There are bound to be periods when neither will be available. There will be major mid-life refits every 10 years or so, which have traditionally taken two or three years. During a major refit of one carrier, if any work needs to be done to the other, both will be out of service. I know that it is expected that the design of the new carriers will make refits and maintenance work less frequently necessary, but can we know that one of the new carriers will always be available? It is a major problem, and I hope that the Minister can deal with it in his reply.
Project Horizon, the common new generation frigate, is due in service in 2004 to replace the type 42 destroyers. That is only six years away. There have been problems with the project, which is already two years behind schedule. The director of the programme described some of problems, saying:
The indicative design is too big and too expensive and this autumn we will be doing trade-offs to reduce it to something the three nations can afford … We have managed to drive down the

complement of the UK version to under 200 naval personnel and we would like to drive down the size from about 6,800 tonnes to about 5,000 tonnes.
It is a late stage to examine such basic issues.
I understand that there are also problems with the missile, combat management, communications and electronic warfare systems. That is a comprehensive list of problems. Is the Minister still confident that the common new generation frigate will enter service on schedule? In view of the problems, is the MOD actively considering alternatives, such as the possibility of more type 23s or the building in Britain of destroyers of the United States Arleigh Burke class? What missile system might be incorporated if the principal anti-aircraft missile system under consideration now is not available on schedule?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I would not have intervened but the hon. Gentleman generously advised us that he cannot stay for the reply. What condition does he think the programme was in when his party left it to us?

Mr. Maples: I have sought to make some party political points, but I deliberately changed my tone when I raised this question. I am not seeking to make such a point. I do not know exactly what state it was left in, but the Minister and his colleagues have been responsible for this country's defence since 1 May last year. They have presumably been addressing the problem. I simply want to know what conclusions they have reached and whether they have considered alternatives in the event that the problems prove insurmountable, or insurmountable within the time frame. The type 42s are old, carry an old missile system and are widely thought not to provide adequate air defence. That gap in the Navy's defences must be filled quickly.

Dr. Peter Brand: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it is not a question of buying a system off the shelf with the principal anti-air-missile system and the associated radar systems? Those systems have to be developed. It would be a retrograde step to decide now to buy abroad and deny the British defence industry the opportunity to develop areas where it has a two-year head start, provided it gets the support of the Government to introduce it into service.

Mr. Maples: I am not seeking to reopen the decision. Some of the complications arose because this is a three-nation project, and the nations have slightly different requirements. I fear that the project may not be deliverable on time and to its intended capability. What do Ministers think the situation is and what will they do if my fear proves true? Can the Minister confirm that the Tomahawk missile fits to submarines are on schedule and that the two landing platform dock replacements are on target to be delivered as originally envisaged and on time?
Will the Minister give an update on the millennium bug, which is bound to affect many Navy systems? It is highly unlikely that they can all be reprogrammed in advance. What precautionary measures will be taken and what is his current estimate of the likely problem?

Dr. Tonge: I understand that the United States has already tested all its defence equipment through to the


millennium to find what happens; joyfully nothing has happened. Should we not conduct a similar exercise, because there is concern among the general population about defence equipment and the millennium bug?

Mr. Maples: I understand that the tests conducted by the United States armed forces have thrown up considerable problems. I assume that part of the programme for dealing with the millennium bug is to conduct some such trials and tests. That is why I asked the question.
I wish to turn to another piece of gross Government incompetence, although this time it is not the fault of Defence Ministers. The fault lies firmly at the doors of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Foreign Secretary. Chile was set to buy two of our surplus frigates next year. It has been a valued customer of our defence industry for some years. In a parliamentary answer to me last week, the Secretary of State for Defence said:
I, my Ministerial colleagues, the Chiefs of Staff and my senior officials have met Chilean Defence Ministers and Commanders in Chief on 21 occasions in the UK, Chile and elsewhere since 1 May 1997.
That is a serious relationship, not a casual acquaintance. That is a meeting every few weeks.
All the time Senator Pinochet has been in this country, a Chilean procurement mission has been in Britain, too. Overstretch in the Army was not sufficiently bad to prevent the MOD from assigning a regular officer to accompany the mission around the United Kingdom. I understand that it was very successful and was about to conclude extensive agreements to purchase defence equipment when Senator Pinochet was arrested. Potential orders included combat vehicles, tank sights and engineering equipment. They have all been cancelled as a result of the arrest. Will the Minister confirm that more than £200 million of defence sales have been lost? What will he say to those whose jobs are as a result at stake? Has the obvious enjoyment of the student revolutionaries reacting to the news of the arrest been worth those jobs? It is a fiasco that shows how casual the Government are with our nation's true interests when the opportunity for some self-satisfying gesture manifests itself.
That is neither the end nor the worst of the story. In a further parliamentary answer about the frigates, the Secretary of State said:
Representative of the Chilean Navy were scheduled to meet my officials for exploratory discussions relating to their frigate replacement programme during a planned visit to the UK at the beginning of November. This will now not take place as originally planned."—[Official Report, 3 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 441.]
Those weasel words disguise the fact that we have lost those frigate sales. Not only has the £20 million of refit work that would have been conducted in British shipyards been lost: the MOD has lost £60 million of capital receipts for the sale of the two frigates that would have been available to it next year. What part of our armed forces will have to pay for that shortfall? Will the Secretary of State impress on the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that when they give vent to the prejudices of their student days in exaggerated language, they affect the real interests of this country in a damaging way?
Let us consider another example of the Government playing party politics with the defence budget: the proposed refit of HMS Spartan, another issue that we have

raised several times without receiving a satisfactory answer. The Chancellor's footprints are all over this one as well. There are five Swiftsure class submarines. Two have completed refits and one is due to be completed in 2000. Each refit has cost about £200 million and the boats will serve on average a further eight years before being decommissioned. HMS Splendid was due for refit at Devonport in 2003, but it has been cancelled and the boat will be decommissioned instead. That leaves HMS Spartan due for refit at Rosyth next year.
Even though Spartan will still be decommissioned in 2006, only four years after the refit, it is to go ahead. In all innocence, I ask whether the Government would be spending £150 million or £200 million on the refit for only four years extra if the work was being done at Devonport. Rosyth is of course close to the Chancellor's heart because it is close to his constituency. In case Ministers think that this is only party political prejudice, I should add that the Select Committee on Defence shares my concern. At paragraph 229 of its report, it says:
We remain unconvinced that a refit for HMS Spartan, … represents good value for money for the taxpayer.
I hope that Ministers will reconsider their decision. It looks like a thoroughly bad decision and one that, if they persist with it, will be investigated by the National Audit Office.
What of the question of European defence policy and the nation's alliances? I can think of no more important issue, but here again we find the Government—this time in the person of the Prime Minister—playing politics. In his never-ending quest for a good headline and the short-term friendship of others, there is apparently no national asset too valuable to be put into play. For the sake of a better atmosphere for a weekend in Austria, the Prime Minister was prepared to undermine and throw into doubt our fundamental security alliances and our commitment to NATO. Not only that: he was prepared to reverse his own policy—one about which he had boasted when he came back from Amsterdam.
During the strategic defence review debate, while Ministers were speaking in the House, the Prime Minister was briefing journalists to the effect that he favoured a European defence capability based on the European Union. That was a 180-degree shift from what he said at Amsterdam, when he boasted that he had struck out the development of a European defence identity. In fact, he described the Franco-German plan as "an ill-judged transplant". These exact issues were raised by me and others in the SDR debate, and we were told that nothing had changed. The Secretary of State said:
We have a comprehensive view of the role of the European Union and the Western European Union, and the European security and defence identity of NATO.…The challenge for the Western European Union is to take on the tasks that it has been given by the Amsterdam treaty and effectively to use its new powers. The challenge for the European Union is relevantly to apply the common foreign and security policy to events in Europe."—[Official Report, 19 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 974]
There was no mention of a defence identity for the EU, but in his interview in The Times, the Prime Minister made it plain that he was ready to drop Britain's long-standing objections to the EU's having a defence capability.
I do not believe that the Secretary of State would deliberately mislead the House on this matter. I can only conclude that he did not know and he had not been


consulted. Let us make no mistake. Such a move would be a fundamental change to a policy of long standing and one that the Prime Minister himself vigorously defended at Amsterdam and afterwards. I believe that it would be a damaging change which would wreck the WEU, undermine NATO and endanger the United States commitment to Europe if the EU developed, as it probably would, into a caucus within the NATO alliance.
Such an identity would exclude several important NATO nations such as Norway and Turkey, which are members of the WEU but not of the EU. It would include several neutral states that are not members of NATO. We have an incredibly successful alliance and joint military planning machine in NATO. It has a European arm in the WEU which can do things without the United States if the occasion and need arises. The WEU has an agreement with NATO to use its planning capabilities and to use United States heavy lift, intelligence and other assets. All EU countries are in the WEU, which provides the most comprehensive European forum. Not only is there no need to replicate any of that in the EU but any such move would inevitably damage NATO.
I can only hope that the Prime Minister was, in his usual casual manner, flying a kite, and that now that the Austrian weekend is over he has forgotten the whole idea. When I called one of the nation's most distinguished defence correspondents to discuss the matter, he said, "Oh, he doesn't really mean it. He does this sort of thing all the time. He's just trying to improve the reception he will get from Chirac and Kohl." I hope that that is right because, if there is to be a change in this policy of such magnitude, it should be fully worked out by the Government and discussed by the House. Our fundamental alliances are not the playthings of the Prime Minister's public relations programme. They are crucial foundations of our security and it is as clear an example as we could ever wish for of how unfit the Prime Minister is for the great responsibilities that he holds that he cannot tell the difference.
May I finish by asking the Minister to clarify for us some of the immediate issues surrounding the verification monitors in Kosovo? I assume that plans are being developed at NATO for their evacuation by force if it becomes necessary. I shall be grateful if the Government can confirm that that is being done. Do the Government believe that a further United Nations resolution is necessary before such a plan can be implemented?
We support the general thrust of the strategic defence review in relation to the Royal Navy. We believe that the development of more expeditionary force capability is the right way to go and that that will involve a force structure for the Navy different from that needed for the cold war. We are delighted that the Government are pursuing so many of the initiatives that we began, and that they are taking forward the strategy and policies that we started.
Recruitment and retention are probably the most important immediate issues facing the Navy—crucial as they are to overstretch. We shall be watching the Government's performance in this area closely.
We are frankly horrified at the casual toying with NATO's credibility for short-term favours. The Secretary of State should explain to the Prime Minister that it must stop. We are concerned at the cuts in the numbers of

surface ships and submarines, and that programmes such as horizon appear to be in difficulty. An early replacement for the type 42 destroyers is vital.
By far the most important aspect of this naval strategy will be the two new carriers. The Government have failed to clear up the confusion surrounding their intentions by continuing to examine the alternative of extending the lives of the existing carriers. I urge Ministers to clear the matter up. Otherwise, they will continue to undermine the Government's commitment to the strategy outlined in the SDR. If they do that, we will not be able to continue to support them.

Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I am grateful to be taking part in this important debate on the Royal Navy. My constituency of Dover, whose famous white cliffs have guarded the English channel during this country's darkest hours, has played an important part in supporting the operations of the Royal Navy. Dover continues to maintain close links with the senior service.
Most of our land-based military sites, such as the Old Park barracks in Dover and the Royal Marines barracks in Deal, were closed down in the last five years of the Conservative Administration. Most of our maritime activity is now centred on roll on/roll off ferries, which make up a significant part of the British merchant fleet. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was proud to sail with that merchant fleet. I should like to concentrate my remarks on the crucial support role that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the rest of the military fleet provides to the Royal Navy and the other two services.
I am pleased to welcome the proposals in the strategic defence review in respect of the Navy, especially the recognition that in the post-cold-war environment we must be prepared to go to the crisis rather than have the crisis come to us. I also welcome the recognition of the importance of strategic transport that flows from that. Particularly welcome are the two additional aircraft carriers, about which we have heard a great deal during the past 10 or 15 minutes, the additional four ro-ro vessels and the 10 per cent. increase in the Royal Naval Reserve. That new tonnage has been widely welcomed. It will help to fill the gaping holes left in the maritime support capabilities that we inherited from the previous Administration.
In the same way as the Royal Naval Reserve has an important and valued role in supporting the military, the Merchant Navy plays an essential role in supporting the Royal Navy and the other two services in times of conflict. The decline and virtual wipe-out of the merchant fleet over which the Tories presided has left us with insufficient vessels to provide the necessary level of support.
I realise that the fortunes of the red ensign lie mainly with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions rather than the Ministry of Defence. We all look forward to the shipping White Paper—the daughter White Paper—which is about to be published. However, in these days of so-called joined-up politics, and in the spirit of the strategic defence review with its emphasis on joint action between the services and a co-ordinated approach to planning, it would have been encouraging to see some recognition in the SDR of the role of the Merchant Navy in supporting the military. It would have


been helpful to see some indication of Minister's views on the size of the fleet below which effective support could not be provided.
The British merchant fleet has long held a key role in our nation's defences, which is why it is traditionally called the fourth arm of our services. Yesterday, we remembered the dead of two world wars and all the other terrible conflicts of the past 80 years. In world war two, the merchant service fulfilled its defence role to the full and suffered proportionately greater losses than any other service. As well as providing operational support for the Royal Navy and back-up for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in the form of tankers, supply vessels and other strategic vessels, it provides transport for our troops, weapons, munitions and aircraft. However, the dreadful decline suffered by the merchant fleet has put such guaranteed support in jeopardy. As recently as 1988, the Select Committee on Defence stated:
The availability of merchant shipping for defence purposes is governed by three factors—the number of UK flagged ships, their accessibility when they are needed, and a pool of British seafarers to man them. There are grounds for concern on all counts.

When Mrs. Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979, the British merchant fleet was the fourth largest in the world; it now ranks 29th in the league table. In the same period, the number of British seafarers employed in UK ships has fallen from 63,000 to fewer than 17,000, and the fleet is now the smallest it has been this century, standing at fewer than 240 ships. Given that background, it would be unfortunate if all the good work for the Royal Navy proposed in the strategic defence review were to be undermined by our inability to provide safe guaranteed support from merchant shipping.
We all applauded the crucial role played by the Royal Navy in the Falklands war, but speaking after that conflict in 1982–16 years ago—Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse said:
Without the ships taken up from the trade the operation could not have been undertaken.
Even at that time, there were insufficient British ships, so foreign tonnage, including six oil tankers, had to be chartered from foreign nationals. Since the Falklands war and the admiral's warning, the size of the UK fleet has fallen to less than one third of its strength in 1982. With fewer than 240 ships, we now lack the ability to carry out a repeat of the Falklands task force operation. Unfortunately, the previous Government did not learn the lessons of the Falklands and they ignored the dangers of relying increasingly on foreign-flagged and foreign-crewed ships. Consequently, by the time the Gulf crisis hit us, the Admiralty was forced to charter foreign vessels on a grand scale. Only eight of the 143 ships on charter flew the red ensign and were signed up to the British registry.
Some might say that the Gulf operation proved the soundness of relying on foreign charters, but that is not true; instead, it proved that there were dangers inherent in taking such action. There was the danger of delaying military operations—because of problems with the delivery of troops and equipment, there was concern that some units were not combat ready until well after the deadline for Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait. There was the danger of being held to ransom by foreign ship owners

who wanted to exploit tight markets. We heard reliable reports that the Ministry of Defence had to pay as much as three times the going rate to charter ro-ro vessels.

Mr. Hancock: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that much of the blame for those problems lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the previous Government, because of the way in which they somewhat gleefully presided over the decline of the British merchant fleet and did little or nothing to stop that decline or to encourage British-based companies to continue to crew their British-flagged ships with British seamen.

Mr. Prosser: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I remember listening to debates in the House during which, time and again, the Conservatives thrust forward the ideas of non-intervention and free markets. They gave little or no support to the Merchant Navy during their 18 years in government.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, at this very moment, P and O Stena is doing precisely that—paying off British staff and putting foreign seamen on its merchant vessels? What are the Government doing to prevent that?

Mr. Prosser: The hon. Gentleman knows that P and O Stena's current actions in Newhaven and elsewhere are the result of an inheritance from the Conservative Government who, for 18 years, abdicated their responsibilities, ignored the British merchant fleet and failed to give any support to training. The good news is that there is to be a White Paper that will help the British merchant fleet, encourage the rebuilding of it and arrest the decline that started under the Conservatives.
The third danger of chartering foreign-crewed and foreign-registered vessels is the risk that foreign crews will refuse to enter war zones to support conflicts to which they are not a party. There were several incidents in which seafarers from non-combatant nations refused to sail their ships to the Gulf.
The problems I have described were acknowledged by the deputy commander of the United States forces, Lieutenant-General Calvin Waller. Even before the end of the conflict, a strenuous debate had started in the United States about the problems resulting from having to charter non-US-flagged ships. Since the war, the Americans have taken action. An example of that is the passage last year of the US Maritime Securities Act, which includes a 10-year, $1 billion programme to ensure the retention under the US flag of 50 "military-useful" merchant vessels, thus helping the US to guarantee its sea-lift capacity. They have also introduced other supportive measures for their fleet. By contrast, in this country there was little debate and little action. Although the provision of two ro-ro vessels and the new proposals for a further four heavy-lift ro-ro vessels are welcome, it is thought that we might need twice that number to meet all our defence requirements.
The National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers, which is the Merchant Navy officers' union—to which I am affiliated—considers that the number of product carriers, tankers, general cargo vessels, ro-ros and large container ships remaining in the


UK register are now well below anticipated defence needs. The first Atlantic Conveyer, which was lost in the Falklands war and replaced with Government money, was flagged out before the last election. The loss of that high-capacity, deep-sea container ro-ro vessel represented a significant loss of sea-lift support and it is regrettable that the Conservatives failed to take any action to maintain that strategic vessel within the British registry.
The Government's proposals for the modernised Royal Navy rightly lay much emphasis on people and recruitment, training and skills. The British Merchant Navy in general, and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in particular, will also need support for training and recruitment if those services are to maintain sufficient numbers of skilled officers and ratings to meet the needs of changing technology and to provide effective crews in times of conflict. The Government's improved SMART—support for maritime training—programme for the Merchant Navy is welcome, but it is only a start. We look forward to more assistance with training when the shipping White Paper is published later this year.
The special role of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in supporting the Navy and other services is well known. The RFA now represents the biggest employer of UK seafarers and invests considerable resources in training and staff development. Unfortunately, it is being penalised by its own success, because its well-trained officers and ratings are much sought after by other shipping companies and by shore-based industries. As a result, staff turnover is high and there are problems with recruitment. The Government have excluded the RFA from SMART funding because they say it is part of a public sector organisation, but there are many examples of public status not prohibiting public funding, so I hope that the appropriate Ministers will reconsider that decision.
After two decades of severe decline—the most serious decline of any major maritime nation—Britain faces a crisis in its strategic requirements for merchant ships and seafarers. As Ministers prepare to implement the welcome proposals of the SDR for the Royal Navy, I urge them to take special account of the warnings of almost every Select Committee on Defence for the past 16 years and the submissions from the shipping unions and the Chamber of Shipping, which have consistently pressed home the crucial role that the merchant marine has played in past conflicts, and the imperative to keep it in good shape to meet the challenges of future hostilities—which, sadly, as we meet tonight might not be too far over the horizon.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I am delighted to be able to take part in this debate because I represent Portsmouth, South, which is the traditional and historic home of the Royal Navy. Twelve members of my family have served in or worked for the Royal Navy since the beginning of the first world war. I grew up within a few yards of the main naval base, and I know from that experience that the Navy played a part in the everyday life of the area. Tales of royal naval ships, past and present, were recounted with love and affection by people in the city.
There were also tales of the Under-Secretary's predecessors; some of those characters were as well known as the ships that served in the Navy. I am delighted

that he is wearing his Admiralty board tie. There was a time when his predecessors had a uniform to go with the tie, and it was not long ago that many of them paraded around Portsmouth wearing that uniform.
This is an important debate on the future of the Royal Navy. We have had several opportunities over the past few weeks to discuss elements of defence. The Royal Navy has—and will, I hope, continue to have—a special place in the hearts of the British people. There are a number of reasons for that, not least the historic connections going back to well before Nelson's time.
The Navy continues to be in the news daily. In the past few weeks alone, we have heard of the tremendous efforts of the crews of HMS Sheffield, HMS Ocean and RFA Sir Tristram and the Royal Marines, all of whom have been deployed providing humanitarian aid and rescuing people from life and death situations in central America. In earlier debates, we have talked at great length about the crew of HMS Southampton and its humanitarian work in the Caribbean, and many Members have recounted their experiences in the Falklands, the Gulf and, more recently, the former Yugoslavia. The Royal Navy is recognised across the world.
The Minister for the Armed Forces referred to the special way in which the Royal Navy had responded to the strategic defence review. He spoke of its up-front and positive reaction to a review that could not have been an easy experience, coming as it did on the heels of the savage cuts inflicted on the Navy by previous Conservative Defence Ministers. I remember, as other Members do, the year before the Falklands war, when the then Secretary of State, John Nott, made bitter, swingeing cuts not only to the work force and personnel but to equipment. That seriously undermined our nation's effort in the Falklands, and possibly led to the conflict, because the messages sent out by cutting the Navy certainly opened the door of opportunity for the Argentines.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I, too, have a memory of those days, and far more of a signal was sent to the Galtieri regime by the irresponsible policies of unilateral nuclear disarmament and the parades held in favour of it by members of the party that is now in government, and especially by members of the hon. Gentleman's party at the time. The Argentines were perfectly surprised that Britain went to war in that atmosphere, for which the hon. Gentleman's party bears a great deal of the responsibility.

Mr. Hancock: That is sadly predictable twaddle. The hon. Gentleman misses the point completely. Our ability to service a fleet travelling 8,000 miles away from home was seriously undermined, as was the morale of the services, by the actions of the then Tory Government, who were determined to make substantial cuts to the Royal Navy.
The way in which the Royal Navy is either welcomed or feared around the world is very interesting. When a royal naval ship appears in a port, often it is welcomed by the mayor and local dignitaries. When a royal naval ship appears on an adversary's coastline, it creates fear, because a potent challenger has turned up on the doorstep. We could, of course, question the role of our ships in some instances. Some of us would ask what was the role of HMS Cornwall on the coastline of Sierra Leone early this year. Perhaps we shall receive detailed answers to that question at some point.


What rings out loud and clear about the Royal Navy is its reliability when and where it is needed. This and other Governments have relied heavily on the commitment and determination of the Navy's personnel—men and women—and civilians to work hard and defend this country's interests.
Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Minister's commitment to addressing personnel issues in the Navy. Much more must be done. I also welcome the fourth Trident boat, and the good news that it will be launched this autumn. Once again, the Navy has displayed determination and commitment to enable that project to come to fruition. The future visits of Royal Navy ships to former Soviet bloc countries are to be welcomed. The recent experiences in Poland, in Russia and, as the Minister said, in Syria are good examples of the Royal Navy being the first to break into new territory.
The improvement and replacement of ships for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the commitment to replace HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid are long overdue and most welcome. We want to ensure that a sister ship for HMS Ocean is also provided during this Parliament, because that would be an essential addition to strategic naval planning.
I welcome the determination to spread equal opportunities throughout the armed forces. I would be happier if the Under-Secretary, when he replies, gave a clearer answer than that given by the Armed Forces Minister when he was asked whether gay people should be allowed to continue to serve or to be recruited into the Royal Navy. He said that he would ensure that those issues were put before the House. That is different from the messages sent out by Labour Members when they were in opposition. Many of us are curious about what issues the Government will put to us. I hope that the matter will be taken up again by other hon. Members who have already raised it.
It would be wrong of me not to use at least some of the time available to me to discuss issues in Portsmouth, which has long suffered the aftermath of Government cuts in defence expenditure. When I was growing up in Portsmouth, the dockyard employed more than 40,000 people. The civilian work force in that naval base is now fewer than 1,000, which is a dramatic decrease. The number of service personnel in the area has also declined. As recently as a fortnight ago, the Armed Forces Minister wrote to tell me of further civilian job cuts in my constituency.
We need to know as soon as possible—more importantly, the work force and their families need to know—the Government's proposals for their future. Will the Government encourage the greater flexible use of the fleet maintenance repair operation resources? What are the long-term prospects for the employees at Fleetlands and other bases in and around Portsmouth?
Decisions need to be made about the future of the naval hospital at Haslar, not only because many people in Gosport and Portsmouth use the hospital, but because that planning is essential to the future growth of hospital provision in the Greater Portsmouth area. The hon. Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and I recently wrote a joint letter to the Minister seeking clarification and speedier decision-making. We need openness and transparency in all those matters.
While we are on the subject of transparency, I hope that the Minister will explain why he cannot reveal to the House and the people of Portsmouth what capital receipts the Ministry of Defence received for the sale of the gun wharf and the HMS Vernon site. I am mystified that information about the sale—which is a one-off—can be withheld. I can surmise only that, as the site was not sold to the highest bidder and the developer stands to make tens—if not hundreds—of millions of pounds from its development, the Government are slightly embarrassed by the price that they secured.
The sale of that land, which was prime real estate in anyone's book, and probably the most marketable and most easily disposable site outside London in the Ministry of Defence portfolio, is now a state secret—so much so that the Minister will not answer parliamentary questions on the subject. Many hon. Members are curious about why it is so important to keep that information secret when we know for a fact that the site was not sold to the highest bidder.
As other hon. Members have said, this is the third defence debate to be held in the past three and a half weeks. I welcome the initiative that was first mentioned by the Minister for the Armed Forces in introducing the second of those debates, when he said that he hoped to change the formula for dealing with defence issues. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), reiterated that today. Rather than holding single service debates, it might be better to have issue-led debates in the future, on matters such as procurement, personnel and so on.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon also asked that the timing of defence debates be considered more sympathetically. I apologise on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who is unable to attend today's debate. He is a member of the North Atlantic Assembly, and is currently attending a meeting in Edinburgh. I see that many familiar faces from both sides of the Chamber are also absent because they are committed to attending that important meeting. It is regrettable that so many of the usual participants in, and supporters of, defence debates are absent from the House today.
The Minister has failed to respond to several issues raised in previous debates. Recruitment is one such issue, and the problems in that area were outlined again tonight. The Royal Navy is short of 1,500 people. The strategic defence review says that full manning will be achieved by 2002, but that remains a serious problem. The Government have not provided specific answers as to how people will be recruited, and how the existing well-trained personnel will be retained.
I do not think that the Armed Forces Minister provided a satisfactory answer to the question about pilots. Many pilots in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, and helicopter pilots in the Army, receive extremely attractive packages from private industry every day. What will we do to ensure that they stay in the services? We know why they are leaving, but the Minister must tell us what the Government intend to do to make their situation more palatable.

Mr. Robert Key: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Armed Forces Minister's predecessor, the present Minister of Transport, the right hon. Member for


Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), addressed that issue by giving a commitment that the Government would talk to the airlines to see whether they could agree a package? We would be grateful to hear the outcome of those discussions.

Mr. Hancock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, as I remember that comment well. Perhaps the Minister will update tonight the progress that has been made in that area. However, as many pilots leave the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force to work abroad, I am not sure whether a discussion with British-based airlines will help. It was also suggested that people could be rounded up at jobcentres and recruited into the Royal Navy—which is only one step away from press-ganging.
A recent answer to my written question revealed that the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm is 12 pilots short. That does not sound like many, but we should remember that only 24 pilots complete their training in a good year. Many pilots are leaving the service: 10 times as many pilots asked to leave this year as in 1993. Some 27 pilots applied to leave the service last year—which is three more than qualify in any one year. How will we fill that gap? There is a job to be done, and we must find a way of turning the tide.
We must also turn the tide of departures from the Marines. Well-trained officers—captains of 28 and 30—are leaving the service, as are well-qualified NCOs. I made that point in the general SDR debate. Those service men face promotion logjams, and must make very difficult choices. The situation is the same for Royal Navy personnel: when they progress above junior rank, they encounter a logjam that is difficult to shift. That is despite the fact that ships are going to sea with 5 per cent. and 7 per cent. crew deficiencies—or "gapping", as the Minister calls it.
It is not enough to say that we understand the problems—that will not boost morale in the Royal Navy. We will boost morale only if we come up with solutions that unlock those opportunities, and show young officers that they will have a future in the Royal Navy or the Royal Marines until they are 42 or 50. Many service men are taking serious decisions to leave literally months after completing very expensive, drawn-out training programmes. Undermanning is a serious problem in the Royal Navy.
If HMS Invincible were at sea today, it would not be right for it to be short of 50 or 60 crew members. Ships such as Invincible are the mainstay of our defence capability. A ship that must offer offensive or defensive support to our service personnel on land cannot go to sea with that sort of deficiency in its crew numbers. We must get to grips with that issue.
People leave the Navy not simply for career reasons. We did not need to invite Colin Powell to this country to tell us about personnel problems in our defence forces. If Channel 4 researchers can find ex-service men who say that they left the armed forces because of racial intolerance, why on earth cannot military intelligence find those people? We need to discuss with them what drove them out.
I do not want to hear Ministers claiming that there is no such thing as racial intolerance in the armed forces, when service personnel at different levels are leaving

because of it. Television companies locate those people, interview them and parade them on television, yet the Ministry of Defence is incapable of finding them. For goodness' sake, do not try to tell me that we need Colin Powell to instruct us in dealing with racial intolerance or personnel problems. We ought to be able to address those issues ourselves.
David Allen, then the youngest sailor in the Royal Navy, left the service because of bullying over a long period. They are not my words; any hon. Member can read them in the Library briefing. Perhaps Ministers should meet Mr. Allen and ask him to recount his experiences. They might ask him why he was driven out when he could, and should, have had a long career in the Royal Navy. His is not an isolated case. We need clear proposals for tackling those issues.
I have often said that we need a coherent policy on issues that affect men and women who serve or have served in the Royal Navy, or who have worked for it as civilians. I have mentioned the nuclear test veterans, the Gulf war syndrome people and the asbestos sufferers. In the most recent answers to my questions, I was told that another 106 compensation claims have been made for civilians and service men who were exposed to radiation while serving on or maintaining nuclear submarines.
Those people did not get radiation sickness or radiation-related illnesses by sitting in their front room; they got them while they were serving the country. Why does the Ministry of Defence drag out cases and force those individuals to endure long-winded litigation, causing them much suffering and distress? Suffering from a radiation-related illness is bad enough; can hon. Members imagine what it is like to contemplate two, three or five years of litigation against a Government who must know that there is no defensible position?

Mr. Spellar: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that we are a member of the nuclear industries compensation scheme precisely to avoid some of the problems that he describes?

Mr. Hancock: I understand that entirely, but I should be grateful if, by the end of the debate, the Minister would explain why 106 compensation cases—some of which have been in existence for a considerable time—are outstanding? I know that he cares passionately about such issues; it is obvious, given his previous existence. He well knows what it is like to be on the other side, fighting for one's rights and for compensation for something that is not one's fault, and encountering barriers erected by big business or Government. We need to ensure that the MOD treats service personnel—male or female—and civilians properly.
We must also tackle overstretch. I vividly remember—as must the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North, who is sitting behind the Minister—the daily articles that appeared in my local paper about the protracted time that crews on Invincible were away from home last year, and the effect on the morale of crew and their families.
I welcome the idea of setting up a welfare association for the families of both the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. I hope that the decision to base that organisation in Plymouth does not prevent it from having outposts in places such as Portsmouth. The overwhelming majority of service personnel in the United Kingdom—at least those


in married quarters—reside in Greater Portsmouth. I am inclined to think that the decision to locate the organisation in Plymouth should be reconsidered, bearing in mind where most of those families and service personnel who live ashore are based.
I hope that the Minister will give us an idea of what he and the Ministry of Defence will do to ensure that overstretch, undermanning and associated morale problems ease in the next two years. I want to ensure that we sign up to a manageable number of commitments, as we have a reduced number of ships with which to fulfil them. The one thing we know for certain is that we have fewer ships available. We also know that Foreign Office Ministers have given us other initiatives, which must be carried out. I should like assurances that overstretch will not be increased—that undermanning of ships' companies will quickly become a thing of the past.
I shall now discuss the two new carriers. Like other hon. Members, I welcomed the suggestion that the Royal Navy would be a significant gainer—if that is the right word—from the SDR, in that it could put two new big ships in the water, which would give us a significant advantage in any seaborne activity. However, we need to ask what package those ships will need.
I am sure that the Ministry of Defence agonised long and hard over the decision to opt for carriers. Even those who have read scant information about carriers know that they are difficult vehicles to protect. The Americans have an in-built protection system. On a ship of 100,000 tonnes with nearly 100 planes on board, the only role of at least 30 per cent. of those planes is to protect the carrier. However, the capability to protect a carrier of half that size from within or from on board is greatly reduced.
I want to ensure that we put two new aircraft carriers in the water, and that the Royal Navy has both the procurement capability and the ships and crews to protect those carriers properly. We want to ensure that those ships can go in harm's way. Certainly, HMS Ocean was not built to go in harm's way. It is a significant omission from the SDR that we have no answer to the question of how will the Government plan to protect those ships when they are in the water.
Other ships should not be sucked out of their commitments to protect carriers. The West Indies guard ship is a classic example, which may easily go. Arguably, it is no longer needed, but a few months ago I was the second speaker at an Oxford Research Group conference at which the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), told us that he wanted the Royal Navy, and specifically that ship, to be used extensively to support anti-drug missions in the Caribbean and central America. It therefore cannot go, if we believe that the Foreign Office are leading on many defence-related issues. The ability of the Royal Navy to mount humanitarian missions throughout the world must be maintained and sustained; but will that be possible when it must also defend two very big carriers?
It is logical to discuss the option of retaining and converting the three existing carriers. I do not support that idea for a minute, but I believe that at least one carrier should be converted and retained, because it makes no sense for all three to be tied up simultaneously in Portsmouth dockyard—as I saw at first hand this year—with not one ready for sea. If we had needed to deliver,

in a short time, a fully crewed ship that was ready to go, we could not have done so. We heard earlier of the problems relating to two of the existing carriers.
We must consider all the options, but surely no one seriously suggests that the Government's commitment to the two carriers is less steadfast than it was when the Secretary of State made the announcement—or rather, when it was leaked. I hope that the Minister knocks any such suggestion firmly on the head tonight. I hope that, loud and clear, he will robustly defend the position. The Royal Navy deserves that much. It deserves to be told the truth, as do hon. Members.
An aircraft carrier of the type that we are considering would give us a considerable edge, especially in some parts of the world where we may have to operate in the next 20-odd years, where no friendly land power will allow aircraft to operate and to defend land-based troops. Naval colleagues with far more experience than I tell me that carriers can always find good weather for flying, and can travel 600 miles a day.
I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about the suggestion that the French made recently. A recent Jane's Defence Weekly article went into detail about carrier co-operation. The French wanted two nuclear aircraft carriers. They named the first ship, and then were committed to build it. I believe that, if they had not named the ship Charles de Gaulle, they might have found reasons not to build it. Typically, the French, having named the ship well before its keel was laid down, were locked into a position from which they could not move. Perhaps the House should decide to name our two new carriers, putting the Government on the spot, and making it impossible for them to back-track.

Mr. Spellar: HMS Gordon Brown.

Mr. Hancock: No, I cannot imagine anyone in the Royal Navy or the House, other than the Minister, wanting the ship to be named HMS Gordon Brown. I do not believe that the Minister's suggestion is serious, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North, who first made it, now regrets it.
It is important that we examine the options for defending aircraft carriers. Has the MOD considered the idea of arsenal ships, which the Americans are seriously considering? Those are missile-based, small-crewed and little more than powered barges, which have the capacity to deliver a killer punch for a low cost. We, too, should look into that.
I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser). How right he was to go into detail about the decline of the British merchant fleet. A country such as ours, which for the best part of 2,000 years has depended on seaborne trade for its existence, has a merchant fleet of just over 200 British-registered ships. What a disgrace it was that, during the recent incidents in the Gulf, we had to hire ships flagged in Luxembourg. What a bizarre situation. We are an island race, and Britain is the home of all that was best in maritime service, yet we must rent boats flagged in Luxembourg. What a source of ridicule for the then Government.
We must find ways to stabilise what is left of our merchant fleet. We must be sure that, when we need ships, they will be available. The hon. Member for Dover was


right not to exaggerate the situation, but to pinpoint issues such as where crews would be prepared to go and what is on offer.
The Minister has often spoken of smart procurement. We must make sure that the British defence industries, like British Aerospace and many others, are given the support they need. The success of the survey ship HMS Scott is a classic example where the prime contractor—in this case, British Aerospace—was able to deliver a ship on time, to cost and to the complete satisfaction of the Royal Navy. We do not want smart procurement, by its very nature, to lead us to believe that we must buy abroad.

Mr. Ottaway: I have listened with frustration to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) and to what the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) is saying about the British Merchant Navy. It illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the British maritime fleet. There is more tonnage owned and managed in London than anywhere else in the world. It is simply a matter of corporation tax. Take away corporation tax on British shipowners, and we would have the largest fleet in the world.

Mr. Hancock: I wonder why the hon. Gentleman did not do that when he had the chance to do so.

Mr. Ottaway: I was not in the Government.

Mr. Hancock: The Government did not do that, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not the only Tory who had a mind to save the British merchant fleet.
On smart procurement, will the Minister give us an assurance that we will always try to buy British? We should buy British in most instances, and we should look for partnerships and co-operation. I hope that the Royal Navy will continue to be the platform for showing the world what is best in British industry and defence manufacturing.
I shall comment briefly on the remarks of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon about the future of NATO. No one in the House dissents from the need to strengthen and rekindle our enthusiasm for European co-operation. NATO is as important now as it was 40 years ago for the defence of freedom and peace in Europe and other parts of the world.
The Minister for the Armed Forces of the day signed up to the WEU when he signed the Amsterdam treaty on behalf of Britain. Future co-operation on defence-related matters would take place not through the European Union, but through the WEU. Our support for NATO would be strengthened by bringing NATO and the WEU closer together, not by taking away the responsibilities of the WEU. The WEU has a unique feature that should commend itself to any hon. Member: it has political accountability at its assemblies and committee meetings. Politicians from this House, another place and other parts of Europe who care passionately play an active part in the development and change of the WEU. I hope that the Government will continue to support it.
I hope, too, that the Government will give as much support to the Royal Navy and its future as the Royal Navy has given and is giving to this country.
The Royal Navy offers reliability when and where we need it. We have taken advantage of that and made use of it. Successive Governments have stood behind its efforts. Ministers will be assured of support in the House and in the Royal Navy if they prove to be reliable and trusted friends of the Royal Navy. Anything short of that would be a great disservice to the past, and, more important, to the future.

Mr. Kerry Pollard: My contribution will be much briefer than the previous one. It is entirely appropriate that I speak in the debate as my constituency, St. Albans, is about as far from the sea as one can get. However, I am told that in Roman times galleys sailed up the River Ver which goes through the centre of my constituency, although now there is hardly enough water for a duck to swim in.
As a youth I was an avid reader of C. S. Forrester, and Horatio Hornblower was my hero. Later, I moved on to Alistair Maclean and "HMS Ulysses", and then to Nicholas Monserrat and "The Cruel Sea", which I still read regularly. That generates a romantic view of the Royal Navy, so when I had the opportunity to join the armed forces parliamentary scheme and to be attached to the Navy, I was well pleased. It was a dream come true for me.
I have not been disappointed in my time with the Royal Navy. I have visited and spent time at all the naval training establishments, and I have been impressed with the dedication and commitment to equipping our young people to take their place in our modern Navy. The enthusiasm for the task was infectious. Much of the work at the training schools is now carried out by civilians, and the change from naval to civilian personnel seems to have been almost seamless. It is still going on, with Flagship being developed to carry forward the process; at the same time the facilities at those establishments are being used to their fullest extent.
I remember with particular pleasure the time that I spent at the officer training college at Dartmouth, where Commodore Roy Clare had a refreshing and innovative approach to the training and development of his young officers. I was told that it is common for officers to come up through the ranks. Indeed, I think that a higher proportion of officers do that in the Navy than in any of the other services. That is to their credit. There was a reasonable number of young female officers at the college.
The training in leadership skills was exemplary. I took part in an exercise that was tailor-made for the humanitarian work carried out by HMS Sheffield in the Caribbean. The exercise involved going across a chasm with a rope and two sticks, then setting up a safe environment for a community that had suffered a catastrophe.
I also spent a day on exercises with HMS Invincible and other vessels out in the channel. It included mine sweeping, gun laying and firing and all the other activities that warships need to carry out in time of conflict. All were practised that day. The highlight of the day was the taking off and landing of aircraft. It was an experience and spectacle that I shall never forget. The skill involved in hovering alongside the carrier and then side-slipping on to the deck was awesome. Five aircraft landed within a few minutes; it was a remarkable day.


Of all the time that I spent with the Royal Navy, the most remarkable was the eight days spent aboard HMS Sheffield out in the West Indies a few weeks ago, with the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). I was made welcome by the captain, Commander Colin Hamp, and his crew and soon settled into life aboard ship. A full programme of activities was organised, which included time spent with each department. I also spent time with the junior ratings in their mess. That was an education. They were a lively bunch, forthright but totally professional. There were about 25 of them in a mess, with a limited amount of space per person. There was little privacy apart from a curtain around each bunk. Hygiene was critical and a great deal of attention was paid to it by officers and crew. I went on evening rounds one night with the executive officer, who found dirt and dust in places that looked perfectly clean to me.
Sheffield had two basic roles—humanitarian work and anti-drug trafficking work. At Montserrat we landed a working party of four men who were to carry out a specific task with the local community, and I was lucky enough to go along and take part in that work. Despite the devastation of their island, the locals appeared to be in reasonable spirits.
We also visited Puerto Rico, landing at the huge American naval base at Roosevelt Roads. I ate a small bucketful of ice-cream and washed it down with a large jug of weak American beer. The Americans have nothing to teach us on the beer front. While there, I was invited on board USS Elrod—an American frigate. I was made welcome and given a tour of the ship, and I met the captain. The American navy seemed very laid back, not nearly as professional as our ship's company and Navy.
The most exciting part of the trip was the chase of a drug trafficking ship. Sheffield was the command vessel of a small squadron involving ships from four nations and two helicopters. In the end, the "go-fast" that we were chasing turned and headed back to Colombia at high speed—a victory of sorts. I was impressed by the handling of the operation by the captain and his team.
The rules of engagement could do with some revision, allowing the captain to be more proactive in the pursuit and stopping of suspected drug traffickers. The Caribbean islands are administered by different countries, and many are independent. Ships often seek safe haven in the territorial waters of those islands. Our ships cannot follow without obtaining clearance from the relevant country, which can take hours, sometimes days. In the meantime, the drug trafficker has long gone. We are taking part in a world war against drugs and we all have an obligation to work together where we can, particularly at the United Nations. If we do not, the crisis will be worse than anything that we have anticipated.
Service personnel usually receive medals for active service. My souvenir version is a ship's hat. On every ship, I collect a hat. I shall not wear one now because it is too small for my big head.
I have enjoyed tremendously my year with the Navy. I found the service in good heart, totally professional and trained to an exceptionally high standard. On 22 July 1807, William Windham, a former Member of Parliament said:
Those entrusted with arms should be persons of some substance and stake in the country."—[Official Report, 22 July 1807; Vol. 9, c. 897.]

Our Navy is full of people of substance and stake in the country. We have a Navy of which to be proud.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate and to register my ongoing admiration and support for those who serve our nation in the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines and the Merchant Navy. My colleagues and I are proud of the work that they do and the contribution that they make.
In East Antrim in particular, those resident in the major ferry port town of Larne have, on several occasions, been honoured and privileged by arrangements made by Larne borough council and the Ministry of Defence to host Royal Navy ships' visits. It was a great pleasure to welcome ashore officers and ships' companies, and when the residents also took the opportunity to go aboard. I hope that expenditure cuts will not diminish the opportunity for future ships' visits. Given the good will generated in my constituency, I urge the Government to encourage ships' visits as a means of increasing contact between the civilian population and serving naval personnel—which should also help recruitment.
I take this opportunity to invite the Minister to join me in urging elected councillors in those areas with seafaring traditions to give support and encouragement to organisations such as the sea cadets whose members may ultimately progress to the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines or the Merchant Navy.
Many of my constituents are employed in the ship building and aircraft industries in Belfast. Hon. Members with a keen sense of maritime history will acknowledge the contribution made by the Belfast shipyards to the British economy in peace time, and to national security in times of war.
In Northern Ireland the state of the ship building and, latterly, the aerospace and defence industries, has come to represent a microcosm of the economy as a whole. When those manufacturing industries thrive—when orders are coming in and contracts are being won—that is of overall benefit to the economy, materially and psychologically, such is the pride of place given to those industries in the hearts and minds of the people. The ship building industry, more modest in size now than during its halcyon days, still employs more than 1,000 people. The aerospace and defence industries, as represented by Shorts, employ more than 7,000 people in Northern Ireland and a further 3,000 world wide. They are our largest manufacturing employers.
In that context, I come to the specifics of the debate to demonstrate how those industries in Northern Ireland can continue to provide a service for the Ministry of Defence and, in so doing, enhance the local economy. The Royal Navy's new joint strike fighter aircraft is due to enter service on the first of the Navy's new aircraft carriers in 2012. Given the massive multi-billion pound investment which the United Kingdom is making in those aircraft, it is essential that they be equipped with the best possible missiles to ensure that they can provide future air superiority for our forces in the 21st century.
Ulster Unionists believe that, in meeting that requirement, the package offered by Shorts Missile Systems, in conjunction with Raytheon Systems of the United Kingdom, is second to none. The FMRAAM solution—the name given to the Raytheon-Shorts


package—is derived from the highly successful combat-proven advanced medium-range air-to-air missile, with upgraded electronics and a new, longer-range rocket motor.
AMRAAM is already in service with the Royal Navy, equipping the Fleet Air Arm's upgraded Harrier FRS2 aircraft. In addition, AMRAAM is also being integrated into the RAF' s current Tornado F3 fighter aircraft, and is already scheduled to arm the Eurofighter 2000 when it enters RAF service in 2004. An AMRAAM-based option offers obvious interchangeability and logistic advantages to the services. Furthermore, the incremental growth path from AMRAAM to FMRAAM provides a low-cost, low-risk solution for the requirement, in keeping with the MOD's new smart procurement initiative.
If selected, more than 80 per cent. of the FMRAAM work share will be undertaken in Europe and, more importantly, 75 per cent. in the United Kingdom. Clearly, the programme is highly important to Shorts Missile Systems and, as I have already suggested, to the local economy itself. Shorts will integrate the missile's key advanced guidance section and electronics unit and perform final assembly and checkout in Belfast. Thereafter, Shorts will also provide logistic support for the system while in service, as well as participating in further upgrades of the missile. That will be significant in fostering high-technology employment in Northern Ireland, and in promoting Shorts Missile Systems as a world-class company with an expanding air-to-air missile business.
The Royal Navy deserves only the very best equipment that can be obtained for our future defence. We in Northern Ireland are confident that the FMRAAM solution will be best for the Royal Navy and for the economic interests of the United Kingdom, and that it will complement the sterling defence provided by Royal Navy nuclear submarines.

Mr. Mark Todd: I am proud to represent the most inland constituency in Great Britain. The Ordnance Survey has calculated that one of the villages in my constituency is furthest from the sea of any in the country, so 1 might be considered ill qualified to speak in this debate. However, my father spent more than 30 years serving in the Royal Navy, and I lived in the Portsmouth area for a long time. I am therefore familiar with naval life and activity from my childhood and teenage years.
That is partly why, this year, I decided to take part in the armed forces scheme, and volunteered to visit naval establishments and ships. By the time that I have finished, I will have spent 21 or 22 days visiting such establishments. It has been an enlightening and enthralling experience. I have been greeted with courtesy and great openness about the Royal Navy's tasks. I have been able to make comparisons with my childhood experience, and occasionally I have met people who served when my father served and asked them about their reactions to the changes that the Royal Navy has faced in the 20 years since he retired.
I have been immensely impressed by the professionalism of those who serve in our Navy. They perform a wide variety of tasks and work hugely

complex equipment, and they carry out their immensely difficult tasks on our behalf with great professionalism and commitment. This debate is an opportunity for us to applaud them.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), I spent some time on HMS Sheffield and was delighted at the commitment shown by its crew in providing aid following the disaster in central America. The fact that those professional men and women are able to turn themselves to such a tasks at very short notice shows the tremendously valuable contribution that we can make in peacetime emergencies, as well as the versatility of the Navy that we are now developing. It is a valuable contribution to international aid and relief.
I broadly support the content of the strategic defence review. I have one reservation, which is about not the document itself but the precondition placed on the review. That was a straightforward political commitment to maintaining the Trident system, regardless of the strategic analysis of the need to maintain it. Although I did not disagree with its conclusions, I felt that that part of the document was less well developed intellectually than I should have liked. The relationship between what was being attempted by maintaining the Trident system and the rest of the Navy's strategic objectives was not entirely clear. It seemed to be a case of saying, "We are already committed to maintaining Trident. We have it, and it is an important part of the bargaining process of disarmament in which we should play a part—enough said." More could have been said and done to analyse the role of that commitment in the future.
On the positive aspects, there is a critical focus on flexibility and the ability to project forces for any purpose. I am taken back to my childhood in the 1960s and my father's experience in the Navy in welcoming the return of the carrier. I well remember strategic defence reviews in the 1960s, as a result of which carriers disappeared. At that time, such reviews had different objectives and faced a different enemy, so it is not surprising that they reached different conclusions. I look forward to a commitment to implement the carrier-based option.
I recognise the SDR's important commitment to jointery and the recognition that the Royal Navy may be a means of delivering relief operations staffed largely by other parts of the armed services. I know from talking to serving men and women that naval personnel have entered into that commitment enthusiastically and voluntarily. They regard it as a critical part of a modern Navy to work closely, and in an integrated fashion, with other parts of the armed services, and that should be applauded.
My business experience is most relevant to defence procurement. My father thought that defence procurement was ill organised, run by a group of people with no idea of what they were attempting to procure, took far too long and was far too expensive. Those ideas are still expressed frequently by serving members of the armed forces. In that respect, the world has not changed dramatically in the past 20 years. Therefore, I looked carefully at the ideas for smart procurement in the defence review and was encouraged by what I found.
The McKinsey report, on which much of the SDR is based, and the extremely useful background essay showed that a number of key messages about procurement had been absorbed. Incidentally, I applaud the publication of the background essay, which provided useful and


interesting material which allowed one to evaluate the decisions that had been made. The review says that the various elements of procurement should be separated. First, commodity procurement—things which the Navy, like any large organisation, needs—should be done as efficiently, quickly and simply as possible. Secondly, commodities that are broadly like anything else but have a defence bent, but have no risk of innovation going wrong or of one technology not working with another, should have a relatively straightforward procurement process. Thirdly, specific defence-related procurement, which carries significant risk of failure and of the challenges of innovation, should have a more complex and intense procurement process.
That three-tier approach is valuable provided that it is critically and intelligently applied in decision making. What I dread is that the third, top-level category will be used too frequently in the process and that we shall dedicate undue resources to the purchasing of material, which, in some cases, could be acquired through simpler means. That is always a temptation in a service where the relationship with the defence industry is sometimes too close and where awareness of value-for-money concepts disappears as people become obsessed about the latest need for innovation in a particular category, whereas 80 or 90 per cent. compliance with need would be sufficient and could be delivered more quickly.
Also important for procurement are a reduction in project phases—so that the approval stages are reached more rapidly and there are fewer of them—and a closer-working team relationship around the procurement process. All those are entirely laudable and likely to lead to more effective procurement of complex naval equipment.
Plenty of history shows how the process can go wrong. The Merlin helicopter is still awaited with bated breath and, arguably, is strategically inappropriate for many of the Navy's helicopter-borne defence needs. We have waited so long for Merlin's arrival that it no longer has as great a relevance to need as we once thought. Therefore, we have neglected the modernisation of the Lynx system and been led down a path of overloading those machines to a level at which some are of relatively limited effectiveness.
That worrying process is alluded to in the strategic defence review, which also recognises that we shall have to modernise Lynx and cut back orders for Merlin, which is appropriate in the circumstances. Those strike me as correct, although I worry a little whether the modernisation of Lynx will deal with the fact that we may end up with an underpowered and aged airframe carrying immensely complex and heavy additional equipment. That will need further analysis and review: the allusion to the modernisation of Lynx is welcome, but further work needs to be done on whether that will deliver the outcome that we seek.
On the more mundane level, we allow our naval personnel to steer complex and expensive ships, and to make crucial decisions about the life or death of themselves and their compatriots, but we have considerable difficulty allowing them to purchase even the more routine items for the maintenance of operational activity on ship. Naval personnel cannot simply go ashore to buy a black plastic bucket; instead, they must go

through the full procurement process, which leads back to the United Kingdom. In some cases, the item will be flown out, at immense cost, to meet requirements.
Most modern companies would issue senior personnel with credit cards and encourage them to use those cards intelligently—subject to the normal processes of discipline when they are not being used intelligently—to purchase the necessary rudimentary equipment to maintain operational activity. I know of ships on which basic equipment is not being fixed and ordinary items are not being replaced simply because of the long supply chain back to the United Kingdom and the complex decision-making process that surrounds it.
I am told that my black plastic bucket comes at about £40 in the defence price list. I should think that any hon. Member who walked into B and Q to buy such a bucket would pay about a fiver, although I have not done so for a while. That shows the immense add-on costs that are borne for the bureaucracy and the time-wasting processes that still seem to be tied up in procurement. We have an opportunity: a lot of useful and high-quality management thought has been put into the high-level procurement process, but the lower-level stuff still labours under a complex and arcane bureaucracy that frustrates many of our personnel.
I also note that the Navy awaits Upkeep, its new computer system for stores. I have run information technology projects, and the project is familiar to me—it is running behind schedule and is having difficulty complying with the specifications. With the move towards consolidation of stores requirements and of sourcing of material, one has to ask whether it makes a great deal of sense to have separate IT systems and projects for each armed service for routine products and commodities. That project, as far as I know, is still going on. There may be strong arguments for why it should, but the logic suggests that it should at least be questioned and placed in the context of a joint response to the same issue.
My last couple of points, I am afraid, again hark back to family loyalties, but ones that I still hold dear. This decision was made by the previous Government, so I direct my criticism across the Floor of the House as much as anywhere else: I have doubts about whether dispensing with the requirement for cheap, quiet diesel submarines is necessarily the right strategy at the moment. Many nations are purchasing such submarines quite freely. They are relatively low technology and extremely efficient, if well armed, in furthering defence requirements.
My instinct is that we have made a difficult choice and lumped for a totally nuclear-powered force under the water, but, if we reconsidered, we might judge that a more flexible response would have included a diesel element to the submarine force. We should review that once again in due course.
In their fisheries protection role, our personnel operate under the management of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My experience prompted me to ask questions about what task they are performing. The Navy carries out the task, but MAFF essentially instructs. Although our personnel apprehend people who are in breach of fishing regulations, it appears that a prosecution is not pursued in nine out of 10 cases. That will, in the end, have some effect on the morale and views of those who are carrying out that task.


If our personnel think that they are performing a valuable function in which they arrest people for breaching the regulations and bring them into port, but hear that no prosecution has taken place—and that happens far more often than not—that will bear heavily on the way in which they consider their task. That is worrying. There is an opportunity to review the relationship with MAFF and how it chooses to manage that particular role; whether that is best management of our fishing stock, which is the strategic objective; and whether it is sensible to maintain an expensive commitment to that role if we are not seriously committed to enforcing the rules.
I have been impressed with the service personnel with whom I spent my time. I brought back many happy memories from the times that I spent this year with naval personnel, and I can report that, in my experience, morale is generally high and people are enthusiastic about, and committed to, their role. Responses to the defence review—I was in a naval establishment on the day that it was announced, so I could listen to views straight away—were generally enthusiastic and supportive.
There are concerns, and I have touched on some which have a bearing on morale—for example, whether people think that their tasks are not being developed seriously and thought through properly. Generally, however, morale is high, the commitment is there and personnel deserve our support. I hope that every hon. Member can give them that support.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who gave a thoughtful speech. I did not agree with all his points, but those about procurement—especially lower-level procurement—were well made, and I hope that Ministers will take account of them.
We have heard Back-Bench speeches from the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard)—who, unfortunately, is not in his place—and the hon. Member for South Derbyshire. I represent Mid-Bedfordshire. We would all probably say that we are as far from the sea as it is possible to get, but I am delighted by the way in which the hon. Member for South Derbyshire and the hon. Member for St. Albans were treated when they went on Royal Navy schemes.
I sometimes regret the fact that representatives of Navy News do not attend our debates on the Royal Navy. As one who has been an avid reader of that publication since I myself was in the Navy, I think that it would be good for the Navy if it reported what Back Benchers thought. It would be a fillip. Friends of mine who are still in the service sometimes feel that Parliament does not understand or care what they do, and most serving officers and men do not know that we have an annual debate on the subject. I think that it is the job of those on Navy News, if they bother to read the report of our debate, to reflect the warm words of Members of Parliament in the editorial columns.
Not since Patrick Duffy, the Labour Minister responsible for the Navy between 1976 and 1979, and Keith Speed, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in a

Conservative Government between 1979 and 1981, have we had a defence Minister who has served in the Navy. I suppose that, with so few ex-regulars in Parliament, it is not particularly surprising that not one of today's Ministers has served in the armed forces, but I find it regrettable. I do not blame the Ministers, for it is not their fault. It is a fact of political life nowadays.
The problem is not, of course, insuperable. The Government seem to have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who cannot count, a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who has never run anything and a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who does not know his mangels from his wurzels, and it is true that, after a bit of time, someone who is new to a Department may turn out to be a good Minister. Nevertheless, if defence Ministers have not served in the armed forces, service chiefs and civil servants will sometimes get their way when they should not. Such people are not infallible.
The Royal Navy went to the Falklands with no early-warning aircraft, in type 21 frigates with aluminium superstructures. We saw the abolition of a reserve fleet, which I consider to have been a mistake, and changes by the last Government to the Royal Naval Reserve, which I think were profoundly mistaken; and, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire pointed out, we have seen the Navy gold-plating much of the equipment that it has bought, when almost the same type of equipment has been available on the civilian market.
Service chiefs and civil servants do not always make the right decisions. Sometimes it is better for Ministers who understand the services to introduce a bit of common sense into decisions, because some of those decisions protect people's turf. It must be admitted that, on one or two occasions, the fact that Ministers have not understood the subject has proved quite valuable. It was, after all, a Labour Government who decided to scrap all the carriers. The Admiralty, rather cleverly, did a bit of spin doctoring, called the carriers through-deck cruisers and managed to get small aircraft carriers—and it is on the subject of carriers that I wish to begin my speech.

Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman has already had 10 minutes.

Mr. Sayeed: I have been warming up. I have a long way to go yet.
The strategic defence review presaged the building of carriers weighing between 30,000 and 40,000 tonnes, carrying some 50 aircraft of a variable mix, and moving from an anti-submarine warfare role to a joint operations warfare role. I have no argument with that: it strikes me as absolutely right. Whether two carriers are enough is well worth debating, but I think it more important to consider whether we will get even one.
Paragraph 234 of the Defence Committee's eighth report states:
These new carriers should"—
should" is in italics—
be fully operational not later than 2018.
It now appears to be 2022. The paragraph goes on to state, in bold type, that
a capability gap will exist until the new carriers are operational. We recommend that the MOD examine how the capabilities and capacities of the existing carriers could be upgraded before the new carriers are delivered and produce costings of the various options.


That is critical. We know that this is an unsafe world; we know that we will need carriers. We have no right to send young men and women to sea without ensuring that their equipment works, and works well.
Paragraph 235 states:
The First Sea Lord also admitted that where two carriers had been operated 'back to back' in the Adriatic he was worried about `our operational capability for contingency tasks which arise at short notice.'
That was the last First Sea Lord, Sir Jock Slater, being extraordinarily polite—as one would expect him to be. What he actually meant was that two carriers were not enough. Two small carriers are certainly not enough. What we know is that one of the Invincible class carriers has been—I think this euphemism was used—"on very long readiness" for a very long time. The two effective carriers that we have are not enough; we need three carriers capable of putting to sea. That makes the decision on how many carriers will be built in the future absolutely critical.
Paragraph 235 of the report continues:
The implications of the decision to procure two rather than three carriers will be that our capability for contingency tasks may be significantly reduced … The ability of the proposed two carrier fleet to be able always to supply both carriers for simultaneous operations has not been adequately demonstrated.
Yet, in paragraph 236, the Committee states:
We were repeatedly told that the UK's possession of two carriers was central to the SDR's expeditionary strategy, and were assured that the decision to procure such carriers would not be reversed.
I hope that promise is kept.
As I have said, I do not believe that two carriers are enough. We should bear in mind refits, docking and essential defects, self-maintenance periods and time on passage—let alone any active service damage, or the shaft problems that we experienced with an Invincible class carrier. Such problems often mean that, even if there are two carriers, only one is ready to go to sea at any given time.
Even more critical are the promised two carriers. They are not due until so far into the future that no funds have been set aside even for the preparatory work. As the strategic defence review bore not the fingerprints but the hoof marks of the Treasury, I will remain unconvinced that the promise will be kept until the First Lord of the Treasury—the Prime Minister—gives the House a categorical assurance that the money will, come what may, be made available to build the two carriers, and to do so on time. I believe that, if times get hard, we will be lucky if even one of them is built.
We know from the SDR that there was a trade-off between the two carriers and the landing platform docks—if they are ever built. The previous Government kept promising the LPDs but never built them, so I do not blame this Government alone—the Tory Government was also at fault. HMS Fearless had a bows-up attitude, as it could not always empty the water out of the stern. I hope that the LPDs will be built, as they will be essential, and I am pleased that HMS Ocean is so advanced in its trials that it can be used operationally.
We know that the frigate and destroyer fleet will be cut by 10 per cent. I believe that the previous Government cut the number of surface warships, particularly frigates and destroyers, by far too much. Anyone who knows how to protect a carrier, which is such a valuable asset,

realises that various kinds of ship have to be stationed around it at different distances. Allowing for refits, docking and essential defects, self-maintenance periods and so on, it will be difficult to protect two carriers that are at sea at the same time but operating in different areas. That will be possible only if nearly all the frigate and destroyer force is used and the distance between the carrier and the shore or conflict area is sufficiently great to be in itself a protection. However, carrier forces have to be fairly close in to be effective, which makes them vulnerable. Protection from other major warships nearby and air attack is critical.
I accept that money is tight. Money is always tight, even when one is not at war. When conflict looms, one realises that one does not have sufficient defence capabilities. There are ways round that. It was a considerable mistake to have scrapped any formal reserve fleet. I am not talking about the old reserve fleet of the 1970s, when ships were mothballed and were out of date when they came to be used. There is a procurement case for building hulls that can use modular-designed defence systems or command-and-control and propulsion equipment. That would enable up-to-date systems that can be slotted into hulls to be maintained on shore. As problems or conflicts arise, the number of hulls available could swiftly be increased dramatically.
The Navy also has to have the personnel. One problem is that people in the service have to spend a long time at sea. Those periods are far shorter than they were when I was at sea, but families are now more demanding; they are less accepting of the constraints of service life.
There is no doubt that having Wrens at sea has put pressure on families, as I warned on 5 February 1990 before the Minister even announced his decision. In some activities on warships, such as manning complex electronic equipment, Wrens do a superb job and are often better than male ratings. However, most of them are not built like Laura Davies the golfer and so—as anyone in the service will confirm—have difficulties in lifting heavy equipment, sea boats and so on around ships.
There are pressures on numbers. The Minister is absolutely right to encourage people from ethnic minorities to join the service. The service gives a superb education, a great self-belief and a good understanding of how to deal with the foibles of others in constricted circumstances. It is a superb way of life. The more British people who understand that the armed services are theirs and want to join them the better, so I applaud the Minister on the work that he is doing. His invitation to Colin Powell to address a conference was an excellent idea and I trust that it will bear fruit. However, it is critical that the selection and promotion of those who are black or brown is carried out on exactly the same basis as it is for white ratings and officers. There must be no favouritism, but there must be no discrimination.
In the debate on the SDR on 20 October, I made some points about the Royal Naval Reserve. I believe that the previous Government made a profound mistake in using the reserve to man the gaps in Her Majesty's warships. Until recently, the Royal Naval Reserve had a mine counter-measures role. As I said in that debate, laying mines is one of the cheapest forms of warfare. It is also one of the most damaging to any maritime nation and I find it extraordinary that the SDR has downgraded


that risk, as nearly every maritime waypoint—certainly every port on which we rely and certainly the Arabian gulf, from where we get our oil—is easily mined.
The Soviet Union sold tens of thousands of cheap ground and buoyed mines to a large number of countries with which we are rarely in agreement. Those mines can be deployed easily and nefariously from ships and aircraft. A merchant ship or a fishing vessel that seems perfectly innocent can put down enough mines to block Felixstowe, London, Southampton, Rotterdam or Hamburg.
Reserves would have needed retraining to engage in mine hunting, but I wish that the previous Government, instead of using them as a stop-gap to fill empty berths, had retrained them and used them in the specialist role that they have carried out with considerable distinction for decades. The Government have the opportunity to reverse a mistake.
The fleet is getting smaller, and it was too small in the first place. We have superbly capable ships but they cannot be in more than one place at a time. If we are to operate two carriers independently of one another, we do not have enough surface ships to protect them. The Navy is undermanned and we have to take action.
The service is a great career for any young man or woman. The Government are right to encourage more people to join the Royal Navy, but they must prove to those in the service that they will at the very least fulfil the promises that they have already made. They have to earn the trust of those whom we, as a country, trust to defend us.

Mr. Christopher Gill: As one of an ever-diminishing number of Members of Parliament to have served full time at sea in the Royal Navy, I am the first to admit that, since I joined the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve as a boy, there has been massive change both in our country and at sea. There has been a massive change in ship design and in the capability of modern warships.
I served in a previous HMS Birmingham, and if ever I feel a need to be reminded of ships of my vintage and the on-board conditions of those days, I need only go to the pool of London and board HMS Belfast. I look forward to the arrival of HMS Cavalier in Chatham, and her restoration and opening to the public, because I believe that that will create enormous interest for future generations and be a fitting memorial to the 153 destroyers and approximately 30,000 sailors lost at sea in the second world war.
There has been massive change in our society, but certain things do not change: for example, the elements in which the Royal Navy operates, and that most fundamental aspect of life on earth, human nature. I want to speak about those four things—ships, the society in which we live, the elements and human nature—all in the context of the Royal Navy.
I join my hon. Friends in deprecating the decision to reduce still further both our surface and our submarine fleet. We have not had a satisfactory answer on what commitments have been shed to enable that reduction to take place. My hon. Friend the Member for

Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) spoke of the sheer impossibility of mounting a proper escort for two aircraft carriers at sea. In war conditions, we would struggle to support only one carrier.
I welcome the Government's commitment to continuing the previous Government's policy of strengthening amphibious forces. Since the end of the second world war, not one of the conflicts in which this nation has been involved was anticipated by any of us: every conflict was unforeseen, and it is a great tribute to the men and women of our armed forces that they were able to acquit themselves with great distinction in those conflicts with weaponry that was designed for another purpose. The Royal Navy's weaponry was designed to counteract the submarine threat from Russia, which did not materialise.
I remind the House that the assets central to the policy of strengthening our amphibious forces were ordered under the previous, Conservative Government: very recently, the helicopter landing ship HMS Ocean came into service, and we look forward to the appearance of the replacement ships for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. The acid test for the new Labour Government's commitment to the Royal Navy is the progress that they make, and are seen to make, in ensuring that the two new aircraft carriers enter service on time in 2012, and are not subject to downsizing in the meantime.
Cost is the big factor: modern warships containing the latest technology are hugely expensive. Ministers' responsibility for maintaining a modern Navy is not helped by the speed of technological advance, which threatens to make even the newest ships rapidly obsolescent.
There is, however, another side to the coin: the cost to industry and to our overall economy of not maintaining a thoroughly modern Navy. Down the years, the Royal Navy has been at the forefront of technological development, with, for example, the first ironclad warship in the world; the application of, successively, the steam engine, the diesel engine, gas turbines and nuclear reactors for propulsion; the use of electricity and electronics for communications and sensors; vertical take-off aircraft; the angled deck; the ski jump; and a host of other uniquely British inventions.
The value and importance of the Royal Navy to British industry and the British economy cannot be overstated. It is, and we hope always will be, the customer of British industry. It keeps many sectors of British industry at the cutting edge of technological development. New orders for the Royal Navy are vital to our manufacturing base, and I trust that Ministers will never lose sight of that fact.
The justifications for maintaining a credible modern fleet are plain to see: peacekeeping operations, as in the Adriatic; policing, as in the Falklands and the Caribbean; protecting offshore gas and oil installations and British fishermen in what are still—but only just—British waters; and, not least, deterring aggression and, in the final resort, defending by force the United Kingdom and Britain's interests overseas.
It is said that the service will or must reflect the society in which we live. That is undoubtedly true, as it can do no other, but—and, for me, this is a very big but—that is not a justification for saying that it must compromise its efficiency and its standards by accommodating all the minority groups and interests of a dysfunctional society.


People who join the Navy do so for a range of different reasons: the call of the sea; to see the world; to belong to a disciplined organisation; to learn a trade; to serve their country; and perhaps to escape their home environment. Let us not ignore the fact that many in that last category may be trying to escape an environment corrupted by, for example, absent parents, child abuse, drugs, homosexuality, law breaking or violence. Those are just some of the aspects of our modern society that cannot be tolerated, and must not be reflected in our ships at sea. I hope that I make myself clear, and I trust that the Minister, who is not paying attention at the moment, will confirm that he agrees with me.
I turn to those aspects that do not change—including, first, the elements. Untold thousands of people around the world today owe their lives to the Royal Navy. Thousands of merchant seamen, fishermen and yachtsmen have been rescued from shipwreck by the Royal Navy. Countless thousands have been the beneficiary of emergency aid distributed throughout the world by the Royal Navy. Now, in Honduras, disaster relief is being delivered by 45 Commando Royal Marines, HMS Ocean and HMS Sheffield and the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, Sir Tristram and Black Rover. The Royal Navy, working in its element, provides a wonderful service for many people who face hardship today.
The extremes of weather that have recently devastated Honduras are not confined to the land. I remind the Minister that worse things happen at sea. Huge tankers disappear without trace. Strong men are rendered useless by seasickness. Warships are set on fire from stem to stern, as happened in the Falklands conflict. In such eventualities, the sailor has to have one hand for himself and one hand for his ship. In such circumstances, who will have a hand for the weaker sex? That is not the only question, or even the biggest question, affecting the role of women at sea. The real question is one of human nature, and I shall turn to that point shortly.
Asked about women at sea, the commanders of ships—the captains, the commodores, the admirals and all the top brass—say that it is a splendid idea. They describe the women who serve in our ships at sea as worth their weight in gold, and say that the Navy could not do without them. However, if one asks the ratings, or better still, the wives of men serving in mixed-manned ships, one gets a different answer. To incarcerate scores of young people of opposite sex in close quarters for weeks at a time is asking for trouble. And trouble, whatever the politically correct top brass may say, is what they get.
I do not base my opinion on the number of offences against the so-called "no touching" rule, or on the number of service women getting pregnant, but on my experience as a young man at sea, and recollections of the emotions and jealousies that the fair sex stimulates among fit young men in the prime of life. I am talking about human nature, and two aspects in particular.
The first is the recognition that to expect young men and women to suppress their feelings and emotions for each other while aboard ship is a triumph of hope over experience, and the second is that expecting commissioned officers to question the received wisdom is tantamount to asking them to make a choice between a principle—which, after all, has been determined by their political masters—and their careers. We see the reluctance of senior officers to question the policy, just as we see the reluctance of politicians to put principle before their own

preferment. All too often, we see that happen in the House, so why should we believe that it does not happen in other professions?
I do not ask the Minister to reply directly to me tonight on those two points, but I ask him to undertake to miss no opportunity to talk to the sailors themselves. While he is doing so—preferably out of the earshot of civil servants and officers in charge—he might like to ask them about the effects of overstretch, which is a serious worry to service men and women. I want the Minister to talk to sailors about the effect of overstretch and undermanning on the morale of the lower decks. As the Minister responsible for the Royal Navy, he has an especial duty of care to investigate those personnel matters thoroughly.
Our Navy never sleeps. Around the clock and around the world, the Royal Navy performs its useful tasks, defending us against aggression, protecting British interests, supporting the peace makers and helping others less fortunate than ourselves. Money spent on the Royal Navy is well spent, and I trust that the House wishes to record its sincere thanks to the men and women of the Royal Navy for a job well done.

Mr. Syd Rapson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on a fluent speech. I did not agree with all his conclusions, but he delivered it well and made my task that much more difficult. When the strategic defence review came out, the Navy and the Royal Marines gave a sigh of relief, because they fared better than most, and that should be noted in a debate on the Navy.
I wish to make some narrow points about people who do not always get mentioned—the civilian workers who support the fleet in all its various establishments. I know that my colleague, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), agrees with me about their contribution. I served for 39 years as a civilian worker and represented them at national level. I live in Portsmouth, I have salt water running through my veins, and I have qualified in jack speak; and I want to give the House an idea of the feelings caused by knowing and working with people who are in difficulties most of the time.
It has frequently been proposed that the civilian work force should be privatised, market-tested or have more efficiency squeezed out of it. Such proposals, which undermine morale, have come up year in, year out. The only time that anything changed was after Keith Speed's review, and that was cheered by many of the work force, because at last somebody had asked what the services wanted, which worked well with the civilian workers' ideas. Reviews by any other Minister, Tory or Labour, are feared.
I want to talk about the people of Portsmouth dockyard. Although it is in Portsmouth, South, many of my constituents work there, and I work with my colleague, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, to look after the work force. We are both concerned about the move to the privatised company, Fleet Support Ltd. and about the people who have worked in support of the fleet for many years. Many of them worked with redundancy notices in their pockets to get the fleet ready for the Falklands. They feel disposed of when such a privatisation happens. I know that the Minister listens to the representatives of the industrial work force at national level, and that he understands the civilian workers' problems. Whether he can do anything about them is another matter.


The civilian workers feel unwanted. People such as myself have urged them to take a more modern view of the future. Even trade union officials have encouraged them to change their ways, and the management of FSL have tried to impose a new scheme of annualised hours. However, the work force rejected it in a ballot by 500 to 40, which shows the strength of their feelings—they do not want to know. They face an uncertain future. Having had the protection of the Ministry of Defence for many years, they are now out in the cold, and they are worried. They have rejected the management moves, even though many of us have tried to encourage acceptance. They are told that they are too expensive, and that costs are too high. I was one of the highest paid craftspeople in the Ministry of Defence before I became a Member of Parliament. During my last year in that work, I grossed £13,000 with overtime and a bonus.
In the naval base, wages are even lower than that, although there are allowances, bonuses and overtime. The pay is very low, but staff are told that they are too expensive, and that costs must be cut. An annualised hours scheme is a means of doing away with overtime, giving workers a basic rate of pay, and improving efficiency. I do not disagree with management achieving more efficiency, but worker morale will go down. People become really sad if even more has to be cut from such low wages. It is very depressing.
My neighbour, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, derided me in a previous debate for saying that there was more fat in the system. As one who worked within the system, I can say that there is some fat. However, the civilian work force will not give total effort to management they do not trust. At least 25 per cent. more efficiency could be gained if the workers felt free to help the boss to be more efficient. I frequently tried to encourage the feeling of partnership for the sake of the business, but the way in which MOD establishments have been privatised means that there is no gain for workers in bringing about such efficiency. There is only the sack, or redundancy.
I urge Ministers who are responsible for support services to the fleet and the Navy to consider workers who have given their all to their country in their own way. Many of them are ex-service men. They must be encouraged to participate, and given some share in the benefits of efficiency. For years, the previous Government told us that our pay would be tied to efficiency. The new Government are saying the same sort of thing, but I can speak only from experience of what happened under the previous Government.
Our efficiency went up and up year after year, but they told me, a worker, that despite all those efficiency gains, they were sorry that my pay was stuck on a figure that was acceptable to the general public. Pay rises had to be limited to 2.5 per cent., no matter what the efficiency gain. At some point, efficiency gains will have to be tied to increases in pay. Only then will people release themselves to work with the company to make business better. No doubt no one will take any notice of me, and it would be difficult for Ministers to feed what I say into the system. If anyone can do it, I know that the Minister of State can, because of his negotiating abilities.
I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), who has just left the Chamber, about Navy News. Not enough is done to publicise what hon. Members say about the Navy, or about the services in general. The parliamentary armed forces scheme has much to answer for. Many of us mention that we have taken part and gained from it, but some people might think that it is a bad thing, intended just to keep us quiet.
I hope to fly to Honduras on Sunday with the Royal Marines, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) and for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). I hope that the trip will not be a hair-raising experience for any of us. It might be more so for some than for others, but the hon. Member for Lichfield is a first-class partner in our team. We live in close quarters on ships with the Royal Marines, who make us do what they do. We do not just visit and view; we have to get stuck in and mix with the troops. The hon. Gentleman has been a first-class competitor and supporter. That is the first time I have ever supported a Conservative.
The scheme is excellent. I have completed about 28 days this year, and I hope that other Members who have not done the scheme will volunteer to do so. Julian, you would be ideal in the Royal Marines—are you the hon. Member for somewhere in the New Forest? You would find the Royal Marines ideal.
I shall finish up, because I could go on for ever, and that would be boring. I should emphasise that there are a lot of civilian workers at the new Defence Aviation Repair Agency. I have raised some worries about that agency, fearing that, in a transition to war, when a civilian work force and all facilities must be available for a 100 per cent. effort, the privatising change that has happened will damage the smooth running of the past. As the hon. Member for Ludlow will know, when the whistle sounds and the balloon goes up, Government workers give 100 per cent. to get ships and aircraft ready.
Privatised companies are something else. They have contracts, and their staff may have difficulties. I worked in the Fleetlands division of DARA, and I know that some of its workers go to Germany on contract for £500 a day over the weekends to make up for their low wages. That means that they are not available for overtime. If there were a call suddenly to expand work from day working to overtime working, as happened with the Falklands, the workers will not be available. They will be in Germany, or elsewhere abroad. For many people, there is no loyalty, only money. That could raise problems in the run-up to war.
I want to finish on the Fleet Maintenance Repair Organisation at Portsmouth dockyard. I have received a letter, and no doubt the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South has received a copy of it. Vice-Admiral Blackham, a customer of Fleet Support Ltd., says that there have been problems and delays with a few ships. The problem is not the efficiency of the workers, however, and it cannot be solved by bringing in an axe to sharpen them up. The problem is with management efficiency.


All the failings described are about planning, not having enough people in the right place at the right time and material losses. All that relates to what Peter Mandelson, the director of the Board of Trade, has said—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has several times overlooked the fact that we ought not to address any Member, or comment on any Member, except by use of their constituency names.

Mr. Rapson: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I put my mistakes down to my ignorance. Whoever it was I mentioned previously did say that industry should sharpen up. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool.

Mr. Doug Henderson: Right hon. Friend.

Mr. Rapson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is President of the Board of Trade.
The point is the efficiency of industry, which is important in a naval base.

Mr. Hancock: The hon. Member raises an important point about the future of FSL and its work force. If they cannot get on board ships to carry out work, it is because there is a problem with forward planning and with co-operation between senior staff at the MoD and senior management at FSL. The only people who ever pay the price for incompetence and bungling by management are the work force. It is they who pay the ultimate price of losing their jobs, and I hope that the Minister will take seriously the problems that the workers face at Portsmouth Dockyard. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North has said time and time again—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going on too long.

Mr. Rapson: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South makes his point well. It is the workers who bear the brunt.
I want to get one final niggle out of my system after waiting for many years to come here. There are among the Government workers in the support services mobile and non-mobile people, but there is something strange about it. The industrial work force are not mobile, but the non-industrial staff invariably are mobile. That means one thing. On the one hand, a worker works for the establishment and if there is a problem, he will be made redundant and will be finished; on the other, a mobile person is not made redundant, but is moved to another job. That is distinctly unfair. There should be equality for mobile and non-mobile workers, just as for everyone else. I shall shut up there, although 1 could go on for ever on a purely personal note.
I congratulate our Government on the strategic defence review as it affects the Navy. As I have said, there has been a sigh of relief in the Navy. The Royal Marines support it. I would not worry too much about Merlin. It is a lovely aircraft. With the aircraft carriers being exposed, do not forget the airborne stand-off radar programme, which is bringing new technology to defend our fleet from a long distance. I have great hope in the future.

Dr. Julian Lewis: There have been several heartfelt speeches in the debate so far. Hon. Members on both sides of the House were impressed by the outstanding contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). He referred to the reluctance of people sometimes to put principle before preferment. Anyone who knows the history of the last Parliament could never make that accusation against him.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) whose sincerity and commitment shone through everything he said. He drew on a wealth of experience. He kindly invited me to participate in the armed forces' parliamentary scheme. I am just coming to the end of my time on the RAF contingent of the scheme—which is perhaps why he did not notice me from sea level when I flew over him in a Tornado a few months ago. I am sure that he and the hon. Members for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) and for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) would be happy to join me in paying tribute, not only to all the officers and men who make our 21 days with the service of our choice in the course of a year so memorable, but to Sir Neil Thorne, a former Member of this House, whose inspiration it was to set up the scheme. Some eight years ago he recognised the diminishing experience of right hon. and hon. Members of service in the forces.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) spoke about the Royal Naval Reserve. I was in the RNR for about three years at the end of the 1970s and the early 1980s when I held a lowly position on the minesweeper HMS Glasserton. My hon. Friend's point about the mistake of winding up specific units manned by the RNR and placing reservists to fill gaps in existing units is the one that Conservatives are making now about what is being done to the Territorial Army. The mistake made by the previous Government should not be made by the present Government in relation to the TA.
In the strategic defence review and, inevitably, in debates about the services one finds a great deal said and written about equipment, but rather less about strategy. I shall refer to four or five paragraphs of the review because it is worth putting extracts on the record so that people who listen to the speeches—I know that the numbers may not be large, but they are significant—without necessarily having ploughed through the documents can understand the points that concern us.
My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defence referred to the concern of Conservative Members about the sudden shift—which we hope is not a real one, but is a temporary flight of fancy by the Prime Minister—away from dependence on NATO and towards a position where our defence policy could be interfered with by conflicting structures from the European Union—not even the Western European Union, but the EU itself.
It is worth reminding the House of what the SDR says in paragraph 18:
We are a major European state and a leading member of the European Union. Our economic and political future is as part of Europe. Our security is indivisible from that of our European partners and Allies. We therefore have a fundamental interest in the security and stability of the continent as a whole and in the effectiveness of NATO as a collective political and military instrument to underpin these interests. This in turn depends on the transatlantic relationship and the continued engagement in Europe of the United States.


To mess around with new defence and security organisations which have amongst their members neutral countries, and do not have among their members the United States of America, is folly in the highest degree.
Chapter 3 is headed "Defence missions and tasks" and sets out eight tasks. The only time that the word "strategic" occurs among the tasks for defence is in the eighth of the eight tasks. At the bottom of the order of priority, one tends to think, it lists "Strategic Attack on NATO". Paragraph 45 states:
For the foreseeable future, we envisage that the largest operation we might have to undertake would be involvement in a major regional conflict, whether as part of NATO or a wider international coalition. We need, however, to retain a basis on which we could reconstitute larger capabilities should a strategic threat to NATO ever begin to re-emerge.

Therein lies the recognition that one day we might find ourselves facing a strategic threat. Any restructuring of any of the armed forces—especially the Royal Navy, where there is such a long lead time between the laying down of naval units and their coming into service—must try to bear that possible strategic threat in mind. It is always the case that at any particular time in a nation's history the threat of a conflict breaking out is relatively small. As hon. Members have already remarked, however, when such a conflict breaks out the likelihood that it will not have been predicted is relatively high.
Paragraph 56 refers to the possibility of a strategic attack on NATO. It states:
No threat on this scale is in prospect. It would, however, be unwise to conclude that one could never reappear but the conventional forces needed to threaten such an attack would take many years to create. This Mission therefore provides for longer term insurance through a credible nuclear deterrent and the retention of the essential military capabilities on which we could rebuild larger forces over a long period, if circumstances were radically to worsen.
That leads us to the key role of the Royal Navy and the strategic deterrent itself—Trident. It is music to my ears to hear the chorus of approval from all parties in support of Trident and the strategic nuclear deterrent. It was not always thus, but I am glad that it is now.
I make one little appeal in connection with Trident to the Minister in my last reference to the contents of the SDR. Paragraph 67 states:
We will have only one submarine on patrol at a time, carrying a reduced load of 48 warheads. This compares with the previous government's announced ceiling of 96.
With respect, that is not to compare like with like.
In July I tabled a series of written questions asking about the number of warheads which had been typically deployed on the Trident system since it came into service in mid-1994 under the Conservative Government. The Government were forthcoming and explained that the figure of 48 that is now being deployed is the exact number of warheads on the Trident submarines and that the typical number of warheads deployed on Trident submarines from the moment of their inception in service was 60. Sometimes it was slightly fewer, sometimes it may have been a little more, but it was never more than 65. We are talking about a reduction of about 20 per cent. in the number of warheads deployed on Trident. As the Government have been honest and open enough to say what the figures are and what they were, they should stop

comparing the current actual figure with the ceiling under the previous Government and compare it with the actual figure under the previous Government.
We have heard that there has been a shift from concentration on blue water or open ocean operations to power projection. That means that the Navy goes looking for trouble, sorts it out and operates near the littoral of a country where trouble had arisen. I am concerned about the danger of losing techniques that we must at all costs preserve, in the event of the re-emergence of the unlikely but possible long-term strategic threat that the review recognises. Those capabilities must not be abandoned.
Although I am not on the Royal Navy part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I had a unique experience on 14 May when I went to sea with the third of our Trident submarines, HMS Vigilant. We were operating in the Scottish exercise area shortly before she went into permanent service. It was a remarkable experience and particularly poignant for me because of my involvement in the 1980s in the campaign to bring Trident to fruition.
When we hear about £40 plastic buckets and other expenses that could be trimmed, it strikes us as a little inappropriate that the Navy feels that it can no longer afford to spend money on presenting plaques with crests of warships to visiting naval figures or host naval ports, as has traditionally been done. I am sure that the House will approve of the fact that I can vouch personally for the presentation of a plaque from the House of Commons to the officers and crew of HMS Vigilant, which is even now out on patrol protecting these shores. It is fascinating to consider that its submerged displacement is 16,000 tonnes, rather more than that of any of the cruisers that took part in the famous battle of the River Plate, and heavier even than the Graf Spee, the pocket battleship sunk in that conflict.
We know the balance sheet for the Navy in the SDR. We know about the cut from 35 to 32 frigates and destroyers, and the loss of two attack submarines—a prospect which was widely trailed and was criticised in a letter in The Times from Sir Patrick Duffy, a former Labour Navy Minister. We know that the number of mine counter-measures vessels will go from 19 to 22, and not the planned 25.
During his evidence to the Defence Select Committee on 20 July, the then First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jock Slater, was asked what he disliked about the review. He replied:
if I lose platforms, whether they are destroyers and frigates or nuclear submarines or helicopters, then I am less than happy. I have to look at it, along with the other chiefs, in defence in the round. If one looks at the package and providing that package is delivered, then I was content to accept reductions in certain areas.
That was, of course, code for the two great aircraft carriers that are somewhere over the horizon. That point was made explicit by his successor as First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, on 27 October, when he told some of us in the all-party defence study group that the best news in the review was the "unequivocal commitment" to two large carriers.
It was said earlier that what goes around, comes around. I too can remember when the late Christopher Mayhew, a man to whom the country owes a great debt for the many battles that he fought in both war and peace to defend this country, resigned as Labour's Navy Minister because of the decision to scrap aircraft carriers when we


were considering our commitments east of Suez. It is strange to think that the wheel has gone full circle with the likelihood of two large carriers being built.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) mentioned how cunningly the Navy chiefs managed to keep the concept of the aircraft carrier alive by creating the through-deck cruiser, which miraculously metamorphosed into an aircraft carrier after a few years in service. Perhaps if the Labour party had decided to scrap our ballistic missile submarines, the Admiralty would have built them anyway and classified them as mobile nuclear power stations. We cannot always rely on such ingenuity to keep the potential and capabilities of the Royal Navy alive when politicians are pulling the rug from underneath the feet of the Admiralty. The Royal Navy is willing to live with the package if the whole package comes to fruition. It will be a long time before we know whether the new carriers will materialise. We must hope that the Government mean to do what they say in respect of them.
I conclude on a more personal note. I was thinking of the tribute that we paid yesterday to those who died in the first and second world wars and in other wars this century. I want to pay tribute to someone whom I regard as representative of the generation that did so much to ensure our freedoms, a constituent of mine, David Balme. As a Sub-Lieutenant aged 20 on HMS Bulldog, when it had trapped the German U-boat U110—which could have blown up or sunk at any second—he led a boarding party onto the submarine and seized from it the Enigma codes, precipitating one of the turning points in the intelligence battle of the Atlantic. While yesterday we were remembering those who did not survive the tremendous battles, it is appropriate to pay tribute, in the context of a Royal Navy debate, to people like David Balme, and the young men who fought with him and survived, who by heroic measures—he was awarded the distinguished service cross—helped keep the sea lanes open and win the battle of the Atlantic, and helped us to survive as a free and democratic country.

Mr. John Burnett: This is also a poignant moment for me. I served in the Royal Marines and this is the first Royal Navy debate in which I have spoken. I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson), who said that he was going to Nicaragua and Honduras to join the Royal Marines on humanitarian operations. They will make him most welcome. It is marvellous that so many hon. Members take part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which gives them the opportunity to gauge our armed forces and understand how excellent they are. We are fortunate in that regard.
Our country has for centuries relied on the Royal Navy as the cornerstone of its defence. Our maritime power, and its latent or actual projection, has served us well, not only in defending our country but in protecting our overseas interests and the interests of our allies.
The success of our armed forces has always been founded on the high quality of the individuals who serve in them, their foresight and their ability to evolve and change. We have reverted recently to an emphasis on joint expeditionary operations. The strategic defence review rightly, in my opinion and that of many

hon. Members, identifies joint expeditionary operations capability as being at the core of our defence policy. The SDR recommends at least one and, if need be, two joint rapid reaction forces to provide expeditionary capability.
In his opening speech, the Minister pointed out that we already had in our amphibious fleet and in 3 Commando Brigade an experienced and excellent joint expeditionary force. Of course, he is right. Expeditionary and amphibious warfare demands highly trained and highly committed sailors, Royal Marines, soldiers and airmen who are both versatile and flexible. Not only must they be capable of serving in all theatres of operations around the world but they must be able to serve in a variety of operations from humanitarian through low-level and regional operations to major conflicts.
Ministers and Members of the House should never underestimate that most difficult of skills at the heart of expeditionary operations, in which the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines lead the world. That skill is the headquarters command and control co-ordination and logistic capability. Joint expeditionary operations require immense experience, expertise and skill to co-ordinate the embarkation of troops, ship them to their destination and land them with their weapons, supporting arms and supplies. These are truly joint or combined operations, in which our armed forces excel. For such operations to be feasible, we must have the escort ships and amphibious ships to conduct them.
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene in his opening speech. I made it clear to him that I welcomed the fact that Fearless and Intrepid were to be replaced by two new assault ships, as we used to call them. They are now called landing platform docks or LPDs. The House will be aware that the very minimum that we require is two ships. After all, they are command and communications ships with heavy landing craft and heavy lift capability. They are not helicopter landing ships like HMS Ocean. They do not have a large flightdeck that can be used to deploy troops in any strength. I need hardly explain that, without a helicopter capability, our expeditionary policy is meaningless. Helicopters and helicopter capability have been at the core of all military operations that we have conducted since 1945. They are indispensable.
I pointed out to the Minister in an intervention that our one helicopter landing ship, Ocean, is now, during its trials, rightly being used for humanitarian operations in Nicaragua and Honduras. I should also point out to the Minister that, with refits and other essential repairs, Ocean will be deployable for only about six months in each year. What are we going to do while we have no helicopter landing ship at sea? The Minister replied to my intervention that the Government proposed to commission two new aircraft carriers. That was a wholly inadequate response. There is no certainty that those ships will be built and, in any event, they are fixed-wing carriers, not helicopter assault ships.
There is a large measure of cross-party agreement that expeditionary capability should be at the core of our defence strategy. We need at least one further helicopter landing ship to fulfil that role.

Mr. Robert Key: This has been, as ever, a good debate. I agree with those who say that it should be more widely read—perhaps not in total, but certainly in abridged form—by a wider audience in the Royal Navy and among naval families.
I begin with some comments on the speech by the Minister for the Armed Forces. I am bound to say that the old story that the Government will not take any lessons from us about cuts in defence is wearing a bit thin. The trouble is that we did the dirty work after the cold war, and a painful business it was, but we resisted the taunts for more and more cuts from the Labour party. The cuts that were made are no excuse for cutting now what we are told is a sustainable budget, at a time of no loss of commitments. Indeed, new commitments are arising all the time.
However, I agree with the Minister about the significance of the shipbuilding industry in this country—especially when it comes to HMS Vengeance, which I was privileged to visit up at Barrow. What a very remarkable boat that is and what a very remarkable work force have built her. It is a matter of great pride for them and for our nation that we can build such a fine submarine.
If anyone wants to understand what projection of power means, I suggest arranging to go on a sea day with the Royal Navy, as I did. I am grateful to the captain of HMS Invincible for the invitation and for a memorable day. To be within a few feet of Harriers taking off is possibly one of the most exciting experiences anyone can have. To be out there in the English channel with destroyers, frigates, minesweepers, survey ships, Harriers, Chinooks, Nimrods and other aircraft is a most remarkable experience. I shall never forget the clearly terrified reaction of the recreational sailors on their way across the channel as they saw this armada approaching. Nor will I forget the strangled cries for assistance and directions from the captain of a large container ship, who suddenly realised that he needed about 20 miles to turn around. Where was he to go? It was a remarkable experience and we are proud of the Navy.
We also have two amphibious assault ships in build at Barrow. I have seen them. Very remarkable construction technology is being used there. They of course are in addition to HMS Ocean. I was delighted that the Minister told us about plans for an association for Royal Navy and Royal Marine families. That is a great step forward which must be warmly welcomed by us all. I hope that it will sit comfortably alongside Airwaves, the association of RAF wives once it has its new constitution, and the Army Families Federation.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) talked about the problem of pilots. I have noted his parliamentary questions with great interest. I must also point out that there is a great problem in the Royal Air Force with senior NCOs. Indeed, at one RAF station in eastern England I understand that five senior NCOs a week are leaving that one base. But I digress from the Royal Navy to the RAF.
I must come back to another point that people seem not to have grasped. If the tonnage of an aircraft carrier is doubled, the dimensions are not doubled. Just because we are doubling from 20,000 to 40,000 tonnes, we are not doubling the deck length. Far from it. The deck length

will increase by a factor of about 1.3. So Invincible, with a 600ft flight deck, will be succeeded, we hope, by a new carrier with a flightdeck of about 800ft.
Hon. Members on both sides have paid tribute to the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which is tremendous. We have all benefited from what those hon. Members have said. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) shared with us his experience as a serving naval officer. He, along with one or two hon. Members who have spoken, has experience that some of us wish we had had the opportunity to pursue. But we have not, and that is our loss.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) highly praised the procurement programme of the previous Government, for which I am grateful to him. He made an important point from his own experience about overstretch. It is very simple: talk to the people involved—the ratings, officers and families. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) made, as ever, an important contribution. He has a large civilian work force in his constituency; he understands it from that point of view. That is how I understand the issues in my own constituency, where there are about 11,500 Ministry of Defence employees: roughly half of them are uniformed and the rest are scientific and industrial civil servants. We should never forget the difficulty they face resulting from contractorisation, which I saw at Boscombe Down and Porton Down almost a decade ago and which continues today.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) shared with us his great expertise in nuclear matters. I am grateful to him for that and for his telling us about the remarkable discovery of the Enigma decoding machinery and about his constituent David Balme. Everyone has contributed enormously fruitfully to the debate.
This is the first Navy debate for probably more than 100 years in which we have been unable to praise a royal yacht. I lament the passing of the royal yacht Britannia, which was as fine and beautiful a ship when she was decommissioned as she was the day she was launched. I regret that the Government have abandoned the previous Government's commitment to find, somehow or other, a worthy successor. Perhaps that is a dream that, one day, might come true.
Rightly, speaker after speaker mentioned the people who make up the Royal Navy—they are, without doubt, the Royal Navy's greatest resource. We all understand that the Royal Navy is a prisoner of demography in matters of recruitment: there is a fairly static pool of young people, which is unlikely to enlarge until after 2010, at which time things might start to improve. However, there are now 30 per cent. fewer 17 and 18-year-olds in the country than there were only 16 years ago. There has also been a substantial change in educational aspirations: in the early 1980s, one in eight young people stayed on for some sort of higher education, but after 18 years of Conservative Government, that ratio has improved to one in three, which has its downside in terms of recruitment to the armed forces.
The Royal Navy has said that a major influence on recruitment is the attitude of parents. For better or worse, the Royal Navy is not seen by some parents as an equal opportunity employer. I congratulate the Royal Navy on the positive way in which the directorate of naval


recruiting is tackling that perception through advertisements, its Spotlight campaign and the appearance of the Royal Navy students presentation teams at schools and colleges.
Undoubtedly, the appointment of the ethnic minorities liaison officer has also helped in many areas of the country. I pay tribute to the sea cadets—especially the Salisbury contingent, whose members, even though they are a long way from the sea, make a remarkable contribution—they are an important source of recruitment for the Royal Navy. Incidentally, I am aware that there is a real problem of people signing up for the Royal Navy and simply failing to turn up on the day—but no doubt that problem will be addressed.
One of the key proposals by senior officers is to reduce the amount of time sailors spend at sea. Four years ago, the Royal Navy announced that it would reduce days at sea, and the aim of the policy was to guarantee that people would not normally spend more than six days at sea at a time. Of course, on operational deployments, some personnel spend eight or nine months away from home, which can have a damaging effect if they are prevented from taking shore-side courses to develop their careers. The strategic defence review carried a strong personnel message for the Royal Navy, but there is little prospect of any change in tasking. Fewer ships but the same number of tasks put even greater strains on personnel. There appears to be a gap between the aspirations of senior officers and the actuality of life at sea. There are not only fewer ships, but fewer shore jobs. I spoke to one young officer who told me that, in one and half years, he has been ashore for only four weeks.
The question of women at sea has been raised. I think that most Royal Navy personnel know that the decision cannot now be reversed, however much many of my hon. Friends might regret that. A young officer told me that he reckoned that, in 10 years' time, the Navy would not remember not having women at sea. The problem, he said, looking straight at me, lay largely with older people. It was well understood where the boundaries of discipline lay, he said, and it was accepted that there should not be liaisons between officers and ratings, for good disciplinary reasons. However, he also said that the Royal Navy should not be expected to reflect society at large—life could be tough at sea. For some people—male and female—it was tough that earrings are banned.
The young officer went on to say that drugs testing is accepted; however, I received a heartfelt plea that alcohol should not be banned from Her Majesty's ships. The abolition of the rum ration was one thing, but to ban a couple of cans of beer at the end of a shift would not be welcome—nor, I believe, would it be sensible. The United States navy banned alcohol 40 years ago, but I leave it to others to judge whether their social problems have been worse as a result.
The single goal of personnel policy must surely be combat readiness, and to achieve that implies sufficient manning levels. Parents' perceptions and attitudes are clearly important, but so are the perceptions of young people considering the Royal Navy as a career. That is why I welcome and support the key messages of the tri-service equal opportunities conference, which was launched by General Sir Colin Powell—if I may call an honorary knight "sir"—of the United States last Tuesday. Many people are suspicious of moves toward equality of opportunity in the forces. Some people even think that

women have no place at all in the forces. I should not dream of arguing that line with my esteemed mother-in-law, who served as a Wren throughout the second world war.
Let me quote one of the key messages that we heard at that conference on Tuesday:
Our Equal Opportunities are not about political correctness. Rather they are about treating everyone fairly, with dignity and respect. Such treatment, regardless of race, sex and background, enhances team cohesion and underpins the essential characteristics of military ethos. To argue otherwise fails to recognise the inclusive nature of equal opportunities which has a value for everyone; it does not favour minorities at the expense of the majority.
The Royal Navy decided years ago that it needed women in the service, because of their particular qualities and because, with recruitment extremely competitive, it did not seem sensible to exclude half the human race. As Colin Powell so memorably put it on Tuesday,
You're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem.
Let us get to grips with the reality of the recruitment problems facing the Royal Navy.
I now turn to a very different practical problem, which is the question of the Royal Navy and Gibraltar. I could spend a lot of time talking about NATO and Gibraltar, but I shall not; that can wait for another occasion. I have known Gibraltar a long time and I recognise the contribution it has made to Britain, to our relations with the rest of the world and to the life of the Navy. I tabled some questions to find out how many submarines of the Royal Navy and the US navy had docked at the Z-berth at Gibraltar. The answer revealed that the number is quite large, which shows that it is an important strategic point both to our Navy and to the American navy.
Even more impressive is the number of Royal Navy ships visiting Gibraltar. In the first ten months of this year, 20 Royal Navy ships and eight Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships paid 48 visits to Gibraltar. That is quite a busy time, although it is not as busy as in the old days of the Royal Navy. The problem of the dockyards and employment there remains a real one for the Government of Gibraltar and for the Ministry of Defence, because it places some burden on their budgets.
There are problems in Gibraltar. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), asked the Foreign Secretary about the resources available to the governor of Gibraltar
to protect the integrity of British territorial waters around Gibraltar against the incursions of Spanish fishing boats and armed militia.
The reply of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), stated:
We have assured the Governor that HMG will provide whatever support is necessary to protect the integrity of British territorial waters around Gibraltar."— [Official Report, 2 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 413.]
In a letter to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, dated 5 November, the right hon. Lady stated:
In addition, we have made it clear that Spanish military or law enforcement vessels entering British waters, unless exercising a right of innocent passage in accordance with international law or when invited to co-operate with the Gibraltar authorities, are infringing British sovereignty and will be asked to leave. HMG will continue to safeguard the sovereignty, control and jurisdiction of British waters.


That was good news; however, in a letter dated 9 November, the Chief Minister had to write back to the Minister of State, saying:
In this respect you will by now be aware of the events of the night of 5th November when three such Spanish vessels, a civil guard boat, a customs boat and a fisheries protection vessel, remained defiantly in British waters just outside Gibraltar harbour for nearly two hours despite repeated requests from the Royal Navy and the Royal Gibraltar Police that they should leave. Indeed one Spanish boat responded by radio that he would continue 'patrolling the area'.
I am sure that you will agree that such incidents are serious and that HMG must prevail upon Spain to desist from such infringements of sovereignty. In addition such incidents understandably and justifiably provoke public opinion in Gibraltar. I am certain that no-one will regard that as helpful or constructive. It certainly does nothing to build confidence.
The Government must now begin to respond more positively to that heartfelt plea from the people of Gibraltar, who deserve nothing less.
I turn now to procurement issues. Although Ministers in Whitehall and we in the House are right to debate the billions of pounds that might be spent on aircraft carriers or the progress of the Horizon project—a ship that most people in the Royal Navy will believe in only when they see it steaming over the horizon—we should not forget the frustrations of life at sea. I am impressed to find that the need for strong logistic trails is understood throughout the Royal Navy. Can Ministers ensure, however, that operational requirements do not suffer from absurdly rigid procurement procedures? I pay tribute to the remarks of the hon. Members for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who also mentioned that point.
I shall give the House two examples. Correct footwear is essential on board ship. Indeed, the entire procurement process is dedicated to making sure that the right footwear is available on a heaving, slippery deck at the right moment. If those boots, costing a few pounds, are not available because of a bureaucratic hitch somewhere along the chain of supply, not only do the millions of pounds spent on aircraft or missiles become irrelevant, but accidents will happen to expensively trained personnel.
There is another point, similar to an earlier point about a black plastic bucket. I was told that during the summer a flight deck officer's headset volume control broke. It was just a simple potentiometer. After six months the headset was still unserviceable. Someone slipped ashore and bought a new control knob for £1.49 from the local shop. The headset was mended and put back in service. The Royal Navy was back in business and sailed to sea. The order was cancelled and a message came back down the supply chain that the officer would have had to wait only another few weeks and he could have had the part for "free" at a cost of only £10 to the taxpayer. That is a tiny example, but it reinforces the point made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South and others.

Mr. Spellar: We are doing something about that.

Mr. Key: I am delighted to hear that the Under-Secretary is doing something. I understand that, like me, he does all the hard work in the Department. I know that he is a man for detail. I know that the

Secretary of State swans around the world telling people what Britain is up to. I know that the Minister for the Armed Forces makes the brave, bold visits to the armed forces around the world and I know that the Under-Secretary is sitting there doing all the paperwork, reading the cases and paying attention to detail, just as I did in other Departments.

Dr. Julian Lewis: He is underpaid.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right.
We all welcome the progress that the Government are making on improving defence medical services and the Defence Secondary Care Agency. The Secretary of State announced measures on 2 November. We shall monitor progress closely, particularly the procurement of a 200-bed primary casualty receiving ship, with a second one available on contract at longer notice if required. Will the Minister clarify now, or later by letter, whether that is in addition to the manning of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Argus as a primary casualty receiving ship? Will we have three such ships in future? Clearly there will be manning problems. We know that the royal naval medical service already has difficulties manning the RFA Argus because of shortages of surgeons, anaesthetists, operating theatre assistants and some specialist nurses.
Echoing other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who regrets his absence tonight, I wonder whether Ministers could give us any clues about their conclusions on the future of the royal naval hospital Haslar at Gosport. I visited that institution with the Select Committee on Defence when it produced its report in the previous Parliament. The hospital is important not only for all three services but for the local community.
We are all proud of the work that the Royal Navy carries out beyond visual range. Much of that is routine patrolling on and under the surface of the sea, and we are proud when the men and women of the Royal Navy and its pilots perform acts of courage, plucking people out of the sea. We are proud of the senior service, when it assists with humanitarian disaster relief, such as in its work in central America at present. We are grateful, too, that the Navy is out on the high seas stopping the flow of illegal drugs.
I was therefore delighted to read on the US Information Agency website in Washington on 14 July that the US and the UK had signed an agreement concerning maritime and aerial operations to suppress illicit trafficking by sea in waters of the Caribbean and Bermuda. The US press release said:
The reciprocal six-part pact formalizes and regulates an existing `ship-rider' program of the two countries, under which U.S. Coast Guard law enforcement officials are permitted to ride on British naval vessels in the Caribbean, and their U.K. counterparts ride U.S. ships. The agreement also provides for pursuit of suspect U.S. and U.K. vessels and aircraft into territorial waters, the boarding of suspect vessels in international waters, and the overflight of territorial airspace to track suspect vessels and aircraft, among other provisions.
Why was there no announcement of that in the United Kingdom? There was no statement or even so much as a written answer in the House. How very unlike Labour's Millbank Tower headquarters to miss such a good news story. There was no press notice from the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office;


there was a deafening silence on this side of the Atlantic. I am beginning to think that there might be some virtue in a freedom of information Act.
On 23 July, I was told that the agreement would be published as a Command Paper, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, and would be subject to the Ponsonby rule. In September, I was told by the FCO that it would available in the week beginning 19 October. On 10 November, I was told that it would be in the Library of the House by the end of the year. Has something gone wrong? What is happening to drug trafficking in the Caribbean? We look forward to an explanation. Better still, we anticipate an end to the Government's secrecy and the publishing of the treaty.
One of the cornerstones of the strategic defence review was the perceived need to move away from Eurocentric, high-intensity, heavy-armoured concepts of war fighting to the lighter, more flexible concept of power projection and rapid reaction, not forgetting, of course, the importance of peace support and humanitarian operations. It is reasonable to say that the success of the SDR and the Government's handling of defence policy will be determined in no small measure by the decisions that they are due to make on a number of sea systems.
The common new generation frigate, or project Horizon, has been an extended lesson in the disadvantages that can attend European collaboration. The House is entitled to ask how it is intended that Horizon will contribute to power projection. It will be capable of fleet area air defence, but how capable will it be in supporting our forces when landing and ashore?
Will Horizon have the capability and flexibility to launch the BGM-109C Tomahawk land attack cruise missile in support of the Army and Royal Marines, bearing it in mind that the recently acquired and welcome capability of the Swiftsure and Trafalgar class SSNs is somewhat limited? Will Horizon be capable of ballistic missile defence against the long-range theatre missile threats that are emerging in the middle east and far east? The protection of British expeditionary forces from such ballistic threats will be an important criterion of success for joint rapid reaction.
There is continuing uncertainty about the future of the Horizon programme and whether it will continue as a collaborative, tri-national programme between the United Kingdom, France and Italy, or whether national solutions will be adopted. Of critical and urgent importance to Matra BAE Dynamics and GEC is the need for an early decision on the principal air-to-air missile system, PAAMS, and the associated Sampson radar, which is manufactured by British Aerospace Defence on the Isle of Wight. The Sampson radar is an extremely exportable piece of equipment.
In order to maintain coherence between the development programmes for the UK PAAMS variant and the development contract to the Franco-Italian variant, for which the contract was let to the French and Italian industries earlier in the year, the way ahead on the industrial structure for Horizon must be urgently clarified within the next few days—and I mean the next few days—thus allowing the new tri-national PAAMS contract to be initialled. If that is not possible, the PAAMS programme should be decoupled from Horizon and allowed to proceed. If the PAAMS programme

launch suffers further delays, I fear that the current industrial agreements on PAAMS will start to unravel, which would be to no one's advantage.
There is also the matter of the Government's continuing paralysis on the question of the future of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I think that it is deplorable. It has an effect not just on the DERA work force of 12,500 people but on the whole British defence industry. It is a serious matter and a sign of incompetence. The SDR contained a sentence or two on DERA, and then kicked it into touch. The White Paper on the defence diversification agency contained a sentence or two about DERA, and kicked it into touch as well. Will Ministers now confirm that they have called in yet more consultants to produce a report in six months' time, with a view to announcing a ministerial decision in July 1999?
The Royal Navy needs to maximise the pull-through from applied research at DERA and exploit commercial standards and private sector developments in information technology, systems automation and marine engineering. Much of DERA's work affects the Royal Navy—for example, the development of composite structural radar absorbent material for warships, the integrated mast technology programme and research into blast-resistant structures. The trimaran demonstrator project, which uses the large-scale trials ship, RV Triton, is very important. The combat system 1 technology demonstrator programme uses commercial off-the-shelf IT for the next generation combat systems planned for the future aircraft carriers, for the future surface combatant and for the future attack submarine.
DERA is an extremely important partner in defence sales overseas. There was much crowing in the press this morning over the fact that the Foreign Secretary has denied, at least thrice, the existence of the Labour Government's ethical foreign policy. I shall not join in that crowing. It is worse than incompetent if the Government did not mean what they said about an ethical foreign policy. If the Foreign Secretary knew that everyone except him was off message, why did it take 18 months for him to come clean?
Currently at risk is a substantial investment by DERA and many excellent British companies in the international naval exhibition at Val Paraiso, Chile, at the end of the month. Will HMS Sutherland still attend that exhibition? Will the Minister for the Armed Forces honour his commitment to attend that exhibition in support of British naval excellence? Thousands of British workers in the defence industries need to know the answer.
Whatever our differences with the Government, they pale into insignificance as we unite to thank the men and women of the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and all the civilian support staff in whom we take great pride. We think of them working in central America amongst the utter devastation and the broken spirits in those countries. The professionalism, compassion and pride of the Royal Navy will bring hope and comfort to those people.
We think also of the Royal Navy preparing for the rigours and dangers of a new challenge in the middle east. We recall with gratitude the naval families and friends who keep the home fires burning. Above all, we are grateful for our island's maritime heritage and maritime future—safe in the hands of the Royal Navy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I think that all hon. Members would agree that this has been a good-natured and interesting debate. Probably the most interesting contribution came from the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who tried to sell the proposition that it was not Mrs. Thatcher's withdrawal of our naval presence from the Falklands—contrary to the policy pursued by the Callaghan Government—but the activities of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament that incited President Galtieri. I suspect that that illusion is shared only by the hon. Gentleman and Bruce Kent. Therefore, I think that it is probably not worthy of the hon. Gentleman's usually serious consideration.
In the course of the debate, I noted with interest the successive contributions by three hon. Members with beards—which is probably an appropriate tribute to the Royal Navy. One of the three, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), spoke effectively about his involvement with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and the hon. Member for New Forest, East. It always bears repeating that the armed forces parliamentary scheme is of enormous value to hon. Members—particularly in view of the decline in the number of Members of Parliament who have served in the armed forces. However, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) was incorrect: one member of the defence team, Lord Gilbert, served in the armed forces. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman stands corrected.
Given that general decline, it is very desirable for hon. Members to gain experience of the forces. The scheme is also valuable for the forces, who gain a better understanding of the political process and may express their views to hon. Members and have those views conveyed in debates on the Floor of the House or in Committees. We shall shortly welcome new members to the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I urge hon. Members who have taken part in the scheme to encourage others to participate. They will find it worth while and an aid to better government.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces said, the strategic defence review put people first. That means, among other things, giving our service men and women the equipment that they deserve—which means the best. The Royal Navy will have the best, now and in future.
From fishery protection vessels, through destroyers, frigates and attack submarines, to the Invincible class aircraft carriers and the strategic deterrent, the Royal Navy possesses a formidable spectrum of capabilities. It is no exaggeration to say that it remains at the forefront of the world's navies. That is acknowledged throughout the world.
Maintaining the fleet of today is a massive undertaking, but one that must enjoy a high priority as our service men and women put their lives on the line on the high seas. It is one thing to ensure the fighting effectiveness of today's Navy but another to take the fleet toward the future: toward the next generation of platform and systems, and toward meeting the challenges of the next century. We cannot afford to give the Navy anything but the most modern equipment.
For that reason, we decided in the SDR to replace our current aircraft carriers with two larger, more capable vessels. We are thinking of carriers of about 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes, capable of deploying up to 50 aircraft apiece. Those ships will give us the capacity to project power, to emphasise our resolve in crisis situations and to make a real difference in influencing events ashore.
Regrettably, once again I must lay the canard about what we are doing with carriers. Interestingly—as I think the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) mentioned—a similar process of examining options for a major ship purchase occurred under the previous Administration, in the case of the landing platform dock replacement. Before the procurement of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark was proceeded with, the do-minimum option of a life extension for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid was examined. That enables us to show that the option chosen was the best value for money for the taxpayer. Unfortunately, having received the answer about our commitment, Opposition Members keep pressing us on that issue, which might cause anxiety among our colleagues in the Royal Navy.

Mr. Key: I am as keen as the hon. Gentleman to lay that canard to rest. The problem is that, as I believe that he will find if he checks, the new inquiries and studies were not carried out after the firm commitment had been given to the House that the project would go ahead. The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question. What will happen if those studies come up with the answer that we do not need the two new aircraft carriers after all? if the hon. Gentleman would give us answers, we might make a lot of progress.

Mr. Spellar: I think that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that, with the new generation of carrier-borne aircraft and with the new mission, obviously the project is mission driven and changes will be needed. That is why we went for the two aircraft carriers. We had made that commitment clear. Work in progress is moving along. Unfortunately—possibly to score political points—Opposition Members continue to press us on the subject. I assure them that we are dealing with the matter. They should not be diverted into questioning an evaluation which, in the case of a fairly unique process and a fairly unique product, gives us benchmark figures that enable us to satisfy ourselves on how we are proceeding and the bids that we are receiving and—also very important—to satisfy the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and other Government Departments.

Mr. Hancock: There is an even greater similarity between what the present Government are going to do with the carriers and what the Conservatives did during the building of HMS Ocean. Once the decision was made to build HMS Ocean, it was re-evaluated and the vessel was built to a lower specification than the military one, presumably on the basis of some exercise that was carried out on the cost of building HMS Ocean to a military specification.

Mr. Spellar: I stand not corrected, but augmented by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sayeed: My understanding of the landing platform dock decision was that the entry in the contracts journal


took place well before a decision was made to build two new LPDs, whereas, in the case of the carriers, the decision to build two new carriers was announced by the Government, and only after that was the entry made in the contracts journal. Is that correct?

Mr. Spellar: There is a commitment to build two new carriers, and the approximate size is known, but we do not have the final specifications. We need that information to make a proper evaluation, as was rightly said by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire should be assured of our bona fides and of our firm commitment to a key part of the strategic defence review. We recognise the strategic importance of the new role for our forces, in particular the Royal Navy, and the Navy's part in joint operations.
Across the piece, the Royal Navy is being modernised. The Vanguard class Trident missile submarine programme took another major step forward this year with the roll-out and naming of HMS Vengeance, the fourth and final vessel in the class. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) when he spoke of his visit to Barrow. One of the elements missing from the debate tonight was a speech by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) who now has departmental responsibility, but who has battled strongly over the past few years on behalf of his constituents and those who work in the shipyards at Barrow.
The final three type 23 frigates enter service from the year 2000. We look to the collaborative common new generation frigate programme to provide the successor to the Navy's type 42 air defence destroyers. I shall return to that.
Three Astute class submarines are on contract, and will enter service early next century, with two more planned. All Trafalgar and Astute class boats will now have the Tomahawk land attack capability.
As was mentioned earlier, the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean—the largest vessel in the Royal Navy—formally enters service next year. The new assault ships, Albion and Bulwark, will join her in the amphibious role early next century. The two roll on/roll off ferries currently in service will be joined by a further four—a major enhancement of our strategic lift capacity. The first Merlin anti-submarine helicopters enter service next month.
The SDR reaffirmed the order for two new auxiliary oilers, RFAs Wave Knight and Wave Ruler. I pay tribute to the role of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the merchant marine. I take the points that were raised today, which I know are particularly understood by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Getting the best equipment for the Navy, as I said at the outset, is about putting people first, but of course our service men and women need more than first-rate equipment. They need to know that we have their well-being uppermost in our minds. Their commitment is possible only with our commitment.
That extends to our reserve forces. I thought it a little churlish that, in a debate on the Royal Navy, one or two Opposition Members yet again entered into the argument about the Territorial Army, without at least balancing their comments by pointing out that there is a 10 per cent. increase in the Royal Naval Reserve and in the Royal

Auxiliary Air Force. We are right to pay tribute to the work that they undertake. We recognise that and see an increasing role for them and also for the Sea Cadets, who were mentioned by the hon. Member for Salisbury and also by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), who informed me that he had to return to Northern Ireland for a meeting. The hon. Member for East Antrim rightly drew attention to the potential for recruitment.
We do not regard the sea and other cadets simply as a recruitment source. They have a valuable role in their own right and they play a significant role in the community. Equally, we do not ignore the fact that some 25 per cent. of recruits into the forces come from those who have been in the cadets and, furthermore, their retention rate is also much higher than that for other recruits. By no means do we expect them all to go into the forces, nor would we want any such perceived obligation, but we recognise that they are a valuable recruitment source. Therefore, they are not just good value for the country but for the armed forces. That is why we shall be putting additional resources into the cadets in the forthcoming years.
As I have said, the contribution of the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Marine Reserve was clearly confirmed by the outcome of the strategic defence review. The Royal Naval Reserve will benefit not only from an increase in manpower but from a 40 per cent. increase in funding for its training of reservists. The Royal Marine Reserve has been given a 66 per cent. increase in recruit training funding.
The personal dimension extends to the Navy's contribution to defence diplomacy and humanitarian assistance. Making contact with armed forces which, only a decade ago, stood on the other side of the iron curtain draws people together. It builds trust and confidence and maps out a way ahead for co-operation and conciliation in the new century.
The Royal Navy is at the forefront of that process. It leads in a number of initiatives which will build and maintain trust with eastern European navies and which will assist in the development of democratically accountable forces.
There has justifiably been much in the press recently—it has been mentioned in the debate—about the Royal Navy's contribution to humanitarian relief. HMS Sheffield provided assistance to communities on the Honduran islands. Her Lynx helicopter inserted relief teams from the ship's company to distribute food and medical supplies and to provide first aid. Working parties also cleared damaged power cables and restored electrical power and drinking water supplies. It is just what we would expect of the Royal Navy, but it is also a job extremely well done and enormously appreciated in the area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South talked about the role of the Fleet Maintenance Repair Organisation and I think that both also mentioned Fleetlands. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North rightly mentioned the considerable role of civilian employees and contractors who are enormously effective in providing the back-up for our services.
After some initial difficulties, FMRO is starting to work well. There is greater co-operation and interaction between the management and the work force. Fleetlands, which is now part of the Defence Aviation Repair


Agency, of whose owners' advisory board I am chairman, has also made some exciting developments which will be of benefit to the four sites that comprise that agency.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South asked about staff recruitment and retention and the problems of overstretch, as did the hon. Member for Salisbury. Most of the personnel released by changes resulting from the strategic defence review will be redeployed across the service, precisely to deal with the problems of the gapping of billets, the pressures which result from that and the danger of a cycle of overstretch. On current trends, we hope to have removed manning shortages by 2002. That will be good for the Navy and for the sailors.
The hon. Members for Salisbury and for Portsmouth, South talked about the problem of pilots, which faces armed forces throughout the world, whether in the United States, Singapore or Finland. In recent discussions, all those countries have drawn attention to that problem. That is partly because of an upsurge in hiring by airlines and partly because pilots feel that they must take that opportunity while it exists, given the cyclical nature of the civil aviation industry. Like many other countries, we are involved in discussions with airlines and are looking at what lessons we can learn from each other and what we can do about retention.
However, the airlines must take some responsibility because they are taking on expensively trained personnel whom they would otherwise have to train. A programme in which pilots can move across to airlines at an appropriate pace would be advantageous to us, to airlines if they would take a slightly longer perspective, and to pilots, who could spend a few more years carrying out the interesting and fulfilling role of a fast jet pilot, knowing that they could then move into the civilian sphere. Thus, we are aware of the problem and are taking measures to resolve it in co-operation with other air forces and navies around the world.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South discussed nuclear workers and test veterans. I dealt with nuclear workers in an intervention. I believe that I have already sent the hon. Gentleman a report on nuclear test veterans, which he can look at again in the Library. The eminently respected Sir Richard Doll of the National Radiological Protection Board undertook not one but two studies on that subject and found no greater incidence of radiation-related cancers among those involved in nuclear tests than among a similar population that was not involved. Had a case been found, of course we would have responded, but the scientific facts do not back that up, whatever the assertions made.

Mr. Hancock: This nation must have a moral obligation to compensate a group of men who were subjected to being very close to nuclear explosions, and whose health has subsequently suffered—indeed, many have died from the illnesses caused. The tragedy for them and their families should be recognised. If it can be proven that their illnesses are the direct result of their closeness to those explosions and the subsequent clean-up operations, we have a moral obligation to compensate them sooner rather than later.

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is right, but he has defined the problem. He said, "if it can be proven".
The best scientific advice from the top epidemiologist in the world, Sir Richard Doll, does not lead to that conclusion. We must take that on board and bluntly accept that a third of this country's population will contract cancer during the normal course of their lives. It is the recorded cause of death for about a quarter of the population, so those who were at nuclear tests and contracted cancer might have done so anyway. Compensation must be based on scientific evidence.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and the hon. Member for Salisbury raised some worthwhile points on smart procurement and credit cards. We are moving on to Government credit cards and considering taking nearly all the commodity products out of the standard procurement process, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire described. We fully understand that local purchasing can be based on Government credit cards and on the appropriate checks undertaken through computer systems to prevent most types of fraud. It is not revolutionary; indeed, a number of other armed services around the world have already done that.
We also recognise the considerable savings that can be achieved on individual line items and the much greater speed with which people get the parts. We fully understand that and we are already making some use of that way of operating. We shall be evaluating it and then considering how far it can roll out—it is important, to reform and streamline our procurement processes.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire about computer systems and Upkeep. The dilemma that is always faced—not only by us, but by any commercial organisation—is, to what extent should we aim for the ultimate and best system, and to what extent should we make what we have work along the way? Sometimes the best can be the enemy of the good in such exercises, but that point is understood by the new Chief of Defence Logistics, who is bringing together the logistics organisations of all three services.
A first-class officer, General Sir Sam Cowan, has been appointed to that post. The fact that we have made such an appointment, and General Cowan is undertaking such work, shows that we are seized of the problems and of the great advantages—not only in costs, but in enhanced operational effectiveness—that will come through that.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) made a number of points. He asked about the year 2000 problem, as did the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire.

Mr. Sayeed: indicated dissent.

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman did not, so we shall get back to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon.
If he wishes, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon could have a meeting with my noble Friend Lord Gilbert, who can speak at considerable length and with considerable authority on the subject. He is seized of it, and has made sure that everyone in earshot and in sight is seized of it. My noble Friend is driving the process through in the Department and is evaluating our systems, especially our critical systems. We are making considerable progress, and we must also press the message overseas to ensure that not only ourselves, but many of our allies, are apprised of the subject to a similar extent.


The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon also raised the question of HMS Spartan, which is to be retained until 2006 and will be the second strategic submarine nuclear to pay off in the gradual reduction from 12 to 10, in line with the reduction under the SDR. I am advised that, for HMS Spartan to remain operationally effective until 2006, it will need essential refuelling and maintenance work. Its refit will therefore be constrained to the minimum necessary work for it to carry out its operational role and will cost less than originally planned.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon asked about the Kosovo evacuation plans. I am advised by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces that we have such plans. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned leaks; as I said yesterday, I should have thought that that was a subject on which a period of silence from the Opposition was in order.
The common new generation frigate, which comprises the Horizon ship and the principal anti-air-missile system and will succeed the type 42s early in the next century, was rightly mentioned by a number of hon. Members. We have recently made significant progress with PAAMS and need to make similar advances on the warship programme in the near future.
It would be wrong to pretend that CNGF has been an easy programme, either under this Administration or under our predecessors. Negotiations with industry and with our collaborative partners have been long and difficult, but it is important that every effort be made to make further progress. The type 42s have given excellent service, but cannot go on for ever. We believe that the Navy has sufficient anti-air warfare capability until CNGF enters service, but cheap and highly effective anti-ship missiles are becoming increasingly available on the world market. We must ensure that we continue to have the means to counter them.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) raised the question of landing platform docks and where we were going with those.

Mr. Burnett: I talked about LPDs, but my particular problem was that we have one helicopter carrier—

Mr. Spellar: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time. I think that the Minister has given way to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett).

Mr. Burnett: The Minister should pay particular attention to the fact that we have only one helicopter carrier. If any sense is to be made of the expeditionary policy that is at the core of the SDR, we need at least two.

Mr. Spellar: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the SDR agreed the design and build of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, together with an integrated communications system. That is very much part of the wider reach of joint operations. The in-service dates for those replacements are March 2002 and March 2003.
I think that that will cover a number of the hon. Gentleman's anxieties with regard to increasing our capability.

Mr. Gill: I am interested by the exchange of views between the Minister and the hon. Member for Torridge

and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). The Minister seems still to be ignoring the burden of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is talking about the helicopter ships, not the LPDs. There is a distinction. The hon. Gentleman is asking why we do not have two helicopter ships.

Mr. Spellar: One of the problems is that everyone would always like more—another ship, and another. HMS Ocean is the largest vessel in the Royal Navy, and is currently on its trials. We need to get the balance right within the available resources. We need to look, for example, at the projection of power through the two new aircraft carriers. HMS Ocean represents a significant enhancement of our capability, as, indeed, will the new LPDs. There may be requests for additional enhancement further down the track, but I think that we have a pretty versatile, effective and powerful package.
The hon. Member for Salisbury, in what, by describing it as an extremely constructive speech, I hope that I will not damage him too much, referred to the royal yachts. Labour Members were not sure whether that was a spending commitment, and whether it had been cleared with the shadow Chancellor; but the hon. Gentleman made some very useful comments about Tuesday's conference with General Sir Colin Powell, and about the considerable efforts being made by the Navy, under Commander Keith Manchanda, to spread the message about good naval careers among the ethnic community. That excellent work is beginning to produce a response. There is no doubt that the Navy is playing a leading role in the services in putting the message across.
The hon. Member for Salisbury asked about the hospital receiving ship. I am pleased to tell him that a further enhancement of the capabilities will be a major upgrading of the facilities supplied by RFA Argus, to be made during her refit in 2000, and improvements to the facilities provided by RFAs Fort Victoria and Fort George. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Gibraltar. We are well aware of the considerable service provided by Gibraltar and its people to our services, not just in the past. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I have both been to Gibraltar, he in his former role as a Foreign Office Minister. The main difference between us is that he ran up the rock with the Gibraltar regiment, and I certainly did not.

Mr. Gill: May I say something about Gibraltar?

Mr. Spellar: No. I am aware of the time, and the normal blandishments of the Whips, which no one resists in any sense.
We have been around the circuit again on the question of the Western European Union, NATO and the European Union. We have made it clear a number of times that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence policy, that we do not support and will not have a European standing army, and that that is not a role for the European Commission or the European Parliament. Equally, I think that we all recognise—indeed, the former Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Portillo, recognised—that Europe was not seen to be pulling its weight in the defence community. There was a need to ensure a European strategic and defence identity. The problem with the debate that has taken place in the past few weeks is that we have become totally immersed in institutional


names and acronyms instead of saying what we are trying to achieve, which will be important not only in enhancing Europe's role but to its image in the United States.
Hon. Members will be well aware that the question whether Europe is pulling its weight is often asked in the United States, especially in Congress. A diverse and disparate Europe that is thought not to be pulling its weight is grist to the mill for the traditional isolationists, who want to retreat from involvement overseas. If we have as our objective an enhanced role for Europe, and I believe that that would command general support in the House, we can move towards deciding how that can best be achieved institutionally, but we have tended, in the past few weeks, to wrap ourselves in acronyms and in degrees in history.

Dr. Julian Lewis: How will our setting up structures that conflict with existing successful structures, and our incorporation into our security arrangements of neutrals that are not members of NATO, help in creating the perception among Americans that Europe is pulling its weight? That strategy will undermine, not enhance, security.

Mr. Spellar: As I said, NATO is the cornerstone of our defence arrangements. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would argue, in the light of what happened in the Balkans, that Europe has been effective in making its presence felt or in taking appropriate decisions. We must move to a broader consensus on Europe and evolve a policy that will reflect it.
No policy is without difficulty, but we need to work out how to move from the position that we are in, which is broadly agreed to be unsatisfactory. The previous Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Portillo, agreed to the strategy worked out in Berlin and it was subsequently ratified at NATO meetings. The hon. Member for New Forest, East must accept that there is a broad consensus on the nature of the problem, although I agree that there is not yet a consensus on the solution, not only in this country but in Europe as a whole—we must continue to try to find that solution.
The debate has covered a wide range of the Navy's activities since the general election. It has illustrated that the Royal Navy remains a force for good in a troubled world. That is why we all join in paying the warmest possible tribute to the men and women, both service and civilian, who make the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines the world-class fighting forces that they are.
The Government see the brightest possible future for the Royal Navy, which not only continues to be close to the heart of all that is uniquely British, but is modern, adaptable and able to take its place in the fast-changing strategic setting of the 21st century. That is why the SDR puts the Royal Navy at the heart of the Government's strategy of building an effective force that is capable of power projection and of being a force for good in the world.
In the thoughtful parts of his speech, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon reflected on the Navy's historical role. We commemorate this year the bicentenary of Nelson's great victory in the battle of the Nile; in 2001, we will celebrate the battle of Copenhagen and, in 2005, the defining battle of Trafalgar. Of the Royal Navy in those days, Mahan said:
Those far distant, storm beaten ships, upon which the Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the domination of the world".
Under our plans, the Royal Navy will maintain its position as a significant force in the world and a service of which we and it can be proud.

Mr. Graham Allen (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITION

Road Safety (Bricket Wood)

Mr. Kerry Pollard: I am pleased to present and to give my support to a petition raised by the Bricket Wood residents association and signed by more than 1,400 of my constituents. It declares that the roads leading out of Bricket Wood are extremely dangerous. Driving out of the village at busy times relies on split-second judgment and luck. Slow traffic crossing the slip road leading to and from the Ml southbound is a recipe for disaster, but residents of Bricket Wood have to do that every day, as the alternative exits from the village take them into high-density, fast-flowing traffic.
The petitioner therefore requests:
That the House of Commons urge the Minister to bear our safety uppermost in mind and ensure that the authorities take prompt and effective action to remedy the dangerous situation outlined above and provide safer exits out of Bricket Wood.
To lie upon the Table.

The Borders

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I want to draw attention to the difficulties in the regional economy of south-east Scotland and north Northumberland. I am pleased to be joined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), whose joint interests in the debate have been notified to the Minister, and who I hope will be able to contribute.
I was pleased to welcome the Minister to Hawick earlier this week. He confirmed important details relating to the implementation of the Hawick internal traffic relief scheme. With his assistance, we look forward to the work starting next autumn: that is a welcome development for Hawick.
Because the area is similar to his own constituency, the Minister will know that the people of the borders are not by nature a demonstrative folk. It is worth noting that, in the very recent past, a petition organised by Tweeddale Press Group attracted more than 11,000 signatures in an extremely short space of time, and that a public rally organised on a stormy Sunday afternoon last month in Galashiels was supported by more than 2,500 people—an event the like of which has not been seen locally for many years.
Tweeddale Press Group's petition, entitled "Keep the Borders Working", asked the Prime Minister to mobilise all the resources of central Government to mitigate the recent catastrophic job losses that have occurred or been announced in the region over recent months.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale. Ettrick and Lauderdale and I have lodged an application with the Prime Minister to see him in the near future and make representations along the lines contained in the petition. The job losses affect not only the borders. Berwick-upon-Tweed shares a travel-to-work area with eastern Berwickshire, so this matter is not only a Scottish Office responsibility.
Earlier this year we were just beginning to come to terms with what were at that time unprecedented job losses in the traditional manufacturing sector in the borders and north Northumberland, in textiles and, equally importantly, in the primary producing agricultural sector, which has recently suffered larger numbers of smaller-scale losses, which are sometimes less dramatically notified, so it is harder to track their exact extent.
Pringle of Scotland, Lyle and Scott and many other small or medium knitwear businesses have reduced their work forces dramatically over a short period. My constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed suffered about 350 job losses apiece just before the summer. We were just beginning to try to come to terms with that when out of the sky fell the dramatic announcement of 1,000 job losses by the Viasystems group in Selkirk and Galashiels. That company is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the

Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, although many of those who will lose their jobs come from communities in my constituency.
I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that the scale of the difficulties is such that they cannot be adequately addressed using the area's own resources. We also need some external assistance.
The Minister will have seen for himself, during his short but productive visit to Hawick, that everything that can be done locally is being done. All the relevant bodies in the local economy in the public sector have been mobilised and they are working closely together. Their co-ordination is excellent and their motivation is obvious, but the budgets within which they are struggling to work were cast at a time when no one could foresee what would happen, although we warned Ministers in the previous Administration that the textile industry was in a fragile state. Notwithstanding that, no one could have predicted 12 months ago that things would be as bad as they are.
The Government should address four aspects of the problem. First, we need them to investigate every nook and cranny of any budget that is available through local authorities or the Scottish Enterprise mechanism to see whether any small underspends, additional resources, capital assets or capital consents can be deployed to help the area cope with the short-term problems that we face.
Secondly, and in particular, we need early confirmation that Scottish Office Ministers will honour their pledge to seek actively to determine whether any underspend has occurred in the present EU objective 5b structural funding programme and to divert any such underspend to areas such as the borders and north Northumberland.
Thirdly, we also need help in applying for eligibility for the new objective 2 category of EU structural funds in the next programme of funding. The safety net that the Government secured in the new programme will assist that process and that is welcome, but we need Scottish Office support for our case to have much chance of accessing any EU funds in future. We have taken fruitful advantage of the £20 million-odd that we have had during the current programme.
Fourthly, the petition from Tweeddale Press Group directly adverted to the need for assisted area status, but we also need help from central Government with our application for future access to regional development assistance. The map is being redrawn currently, in co-operation with the Department of Trade and Industry, but if we do not get help we will face depopulation in the next few years. That will damage the local economy and we will suffer the consequences for many years to come.
I have two concerns specific to my constituency. I am worried about the knitwear industry and the agricultural sector, which is spread widely across the region. Hawick, and towns like it, have several viable knitwear businesses. They operate in niche markets and they manufacture world-quality goods, but they need to be nurtured and helped to develop. They need help with training, equipment and new market opportunities and they need assistance to enable them to compete more effectively in future. The Government can help with such activities.
Border towns such as Hawick need much more public investment in the built environment. The traffic relief scheme that the Minister announced when he was in Hawick will help that and it could be used as a focal point around which other built environment improvements


could be structured. Good examples exist of what can be done. If the Minister cares to look at the example of Duns in my constituency, he will see a central town scheme that transformed the centre in a way that gave a boost to the whole local economy. We have been told that we will have a replacement cottage hospital in Hawick, and that is welcome. However, it is a private finance initiative project, so it will take longer than we would have liked. Other welcome initiatives have been taken in the Galalaw factory units to grow new small-scale businesses in the town, but we need more assistance in training and business development in the community.
We also need the Borders college to be expanded. I was disappointed to discover that the rules do not allow mature students over 50 access to student loans. An electrician in my constituency wants to study computer science and has been accepted on a course. Because he is 52, he cannot get a loan, but that is perverse and the Government should reconsider that obstacle to retraining. A change would not cost large sums of money, but it would make a difference to the constituent to whom I spoke on Friday.
The Borders college has been given help recently. My hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale has received some welcome news about expansion in bursary capacity there. He and I are keen that the problems of a split-site rural college of education should be recognised in the funding formula. I need not overstress that argument to the Minister, who knows well enough those difficulties from the problems in his own back yard.
Tourism can develop, there is potential for forestry processing, and the local enterprise company, Scottish Borders Enterprise, is working hard to expand indigenous businesses. The local authority is working hard to develop business, to improve transport links and to gain additional resources for schools. The Secretary of State has been to the Burnfoot primary school in Hawick and has given extra assistance to the community school development there, and that is very welcome.
The borders could also take advantage of social inclusion schemes that are currently in gestation. I plead with the Minister to consider urgently applications that will come from the region. In passing, I should just mention the Dalkeith bypass. When the Minister visited Hawick earlier this week, he heard from the convenor of Borders council that the bypass is important to the borders economy: it is not just an Edinburgh issue.
There is evidence of market failure in the private sector in south-east Scotland. The public sector must pump-prime provision of factories and other premises in areas in which the private sector simply is not prepared to invest. Towns such as Hawick need that. We must provide premises of the right size and quality, in the right places. That would be a sensible investment, which would pay dividends by unlocking private sector investment that would kick up and underpin the local economy.
We can take advantage of one new opportunity—the welcome new development at the Heriot-Watt university campus. That gives us access to higher education, and it could result in spin-offs such as development of a science park at the Riccarton site. I attended Heriot-Watt university myself, and I know what a magnet and what a generator of economic wealth a science park spun around

a campus can be. There are opportunities for conference facilities and for information technology spin-offs for the whole region if the park is properly developed. We still require Government help with that investment.
The local authority and the local enterprise company are compiling a medium-term economic strategy. I am confident that that will address the questions, and that it will come up with good recommendations. We need help to bridge gaps in the short term, however, to ensure that the system works.
I have two final points, on agriculture. There is concern that the Irish Government have put money into reducing Ireland's ewe flow. The Republic's national heritage Department is, if rumour is correct, putting funds into agriculture, paying £30 a head to take ewes out of the system. That may be good for the south of Ireland, but the ewes may be dumped on the United Kingdom market at £17 a kilo. That would have a catastrophic effect on an already difficult sheep market throughout Scotland, and particularly in the borders.
Secondly, we need a package of measures to tackle the problems of agriculture by reorganising local businesses. In particular, we need a more effective outgoers scheme to allow tenant farmers on the hills to retire with some dignity.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that we face serious problems. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and I are determined to keep on raising these matters robustly and positively to make sure that the Government are kept informed of local circumstances as the local crisis unfolds. We want the House to be able to monitor Ministers' responses. If we hear only empty rhetoric, local people will notice it. That would cause damaging depopulation, which would be held against the Government for many years to come.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for seeking this debate and giving us and our hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) an opportunity to represent concerns that go right across the borders.
As my hon. Friend made clear when he spoke about the redundancies at Pringle of Scotland which occurred in both his constituency and Berwick-upon-Tweed, redundancies know no boundaries. Although the firm is called Pringle of Scotland and it did not make much publicly of the fact that so much of its knitwear was assembled in England, it was a significant employer in the town. In years gone by it employed hundreds more even than those who lost their job at that final stage. Textile job losses hit us hard, along with the rest of the borders.
Since then there have been other losses as a couple of firms have gone under, one in computer cataloguing and the other a sandwich business. Both provided vital jobs in the area.
At the same time, we have a desperately difficult situation in agriculture. It is not always realised how many agriculture-related businesses there are in the communities of the borders or how much the small


towns depend on agriculture because they service it. They provide it with supplies, machinery and vehicles. They maintain those vehicles and carry out engineering and other services. Not only Berwick and Kelso, but smaller towns like Wooler, Belford, Chirnside and Coldstream are involved in those businesses and they are all feeling the pinch severely. Further job losses are starting to happen in agriculture-related businesses, all of which trade across the border. It is a cross-border problem which demands cross-border solutions.
In this my brief contribution I want to emphasise to a Scottish Office Minister how he might help us and what he could be doing. I remind him that if 100 jobs are created in Berwick, in all probability 20 or 25 of them will be taken by my hon. Friend's Scottish constituents. If 20 jobs are created in the Cornhill area, a number of people from Coldstream will take those jobs. Conversely, the success of businesses on the Scottish side of the border, such as Dexters papermill in Chirnside and others, is crucial to my constituents.
I should first like to see the Minister ensure full co-operation from Scottish agencies with the Berwick area task force. It was set up to co-ordinate all the work of all the Government-related and relevant private bodies that can contribute to economic regeneration in and around Berwick. It started life as Pringles task force in response to the redundancies there, but it has had to change its name because of so many other redundancies elsewhere and the widening problem. We have had some co-operation from the Scottish Borders Council and from the Scottish Development Agency, and we should like that to continue and to be strengthened.
In recognising that jobs in Berwick are relevant to the other side of the border, I hope that the door will not be shut on any suggestion of some financial help in putting together a joint bid for some industrial regeneration project or other. It would be sound investment for the Scottish agencies. The problem is often assembling a bid which puts together enough matching funds to draw out the European funds which are available for many of these projects, such as those for textile areas under the Retex scheme. The other day a Minister assured me that there are £2.5 million in funds directly accessible for various regeneration work in the Berwick area, but that depends on assembling matching funds.
In the context of European funds I echo my hon. Friend's plea in so far as it relates to north Northumberland, too. I hope that he recognises how important it is that north Northumberland continues to have some access to European and United Kingdom regional funds. We have patchy involvement now partly because in times past the Berwick area has not been one of high unemployment. We are suddenly faced with these problems. The southern end of my constituency, which is more related to the Tyneside economy, has had high unemployment for a long time. Unemployment has hit the borders severely in relatively recent times and since most of the old maps of assisted area status and so on were created.
I hope that the Minister recognises the importance of infrastructure spending on jobs in the area. All of this is of cross-border significance. Hon. Members have worked together on the A 1 campaign because it is crucial to the communities on both sides of the border that we have a safe and effective A 1 . We have all been bitterly disappointed—indeed, the hon. Member for East Lothian

(Mr. Home Robertson) has said so—that so many A1 dualling projects have been abandoned on the Scottish side and that progress on the English side is so limited.
There are other transport plans and proposals, for example for a rail freight centre in Berwick and for opening up rail links in the borders. I hope that they will be looked on with favour because they will bring jobs as they are created and will strengthen the infrastructure for the businesses that could prosper in the area.
My last point concerns joined-up Government, in the phrase that Ministers have popularised. When an area has a crisis such as this, every Department should be put on notice that it has special problems so that all decisions are checked for whether they will make the problems worse. It is happening even now. Several Ministers have said how concerned they are by the situation in the borders but harmful decisions are still being taken.
We have a classic coming up on Monday. If the Government announce that we are to lose the Territorial Army centre in Berwick, we will lose some full-time jobs, and the input into the training and development of the relatively young men and women who have the opportunity to serve in the TA. They would have to travel to continue serving. Closure would have an impact on the area.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]

Mr. Beith: Education expenditure, to give only one more example, is crucial. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire mentioned further education, of which there is little in the eastern borders. For most people, there is almost nothing within 30 or 40 miles or any sort of travelling distance. Berwick-upon-Tweed has only a tiny annex of Northumberland college with a useful but limited range of facilities. The only other readily accessible facility is the part of the Borders college at Duns. Again, that is only a small part of the college's activities. Without further education facilities in the area, we cannot re-equip our young people to follow different careers. I hope that as part of joined-up Government, Ministers realise that every Department must deliver its policies as they affect areas with special problems. I hope that the three of us will have made the case that the area has special problems.

Mr. Michael Moore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for encouraging me to participate in this debate, and to the Minister for his willingness to hear from the three Members who represent south-east Scotland and Northumberland, which have been badly affected by economic developments over the past 12 or 18 months.
It has been a dreadful year. We face the loss of about 2,000 or 2,500 jobs. There is not a community that has not been affected. My right hon. and hon. Friends have been most eloquent in explaining how the different communities north and south of the border have been affected, and how much they depend on one another. It is only as we approach Christmas that the personal tragedy of lost jobs and lack of income, and the desperation


of families, will come home to roost, not least in textiles, but also in electronics, with the first major redundancies from Viasystems expected in the next few weeks.
Our part of the country welcomes the fact that Ministers have visited and seen our problems at first hand. It is fair to say that, over the summer, we have had many meetings with Ministers in Glasgow or in the borders, and we are most grateful for that. If the Minister will accept a small reminder, many initiatives have come from the communities of the borders and local agencies. All the people of the borders recognise the need to come up with good, positive ideas. The various rescue plans put to the Scottish Office over the past few months pay tribute to the creativity and far-sightedness of many local people in understanding the nature of the problems that affect our area, and possible solutions to help get us out of the current difficulties.
There is no lack of community spirit. We hear so often about the borders rivalries. This shows the flip side: towns and villages coming together, recognising the common purpose of the borders and the north of England. We know that we need a variety of responses in the short, medium and long term.
For the short term, I have already mentioned that so many families are horribly affected by the sudden loss of jobs and thus of income. We have had some high-profile task forces from the Department of Social Security and the Employment Service in our area in recent weeks. We are anxious to have an assurance from the Minister that those task forces will remain in the borders, properly staffed and resourced, for many weeks and months to come, to ensure that the proper advice and support is available to those families in their hour of need.
In the medium term, to provide some solutions for our part of Scotland and the north of England, we must tackle our disadvantages. Reference has already been made to the need for assisted area status. I commend to the Minister the publication by Scottish Borders council entitled "The Scottish borders case for assisted area status" only recently produced, and now submitted to the Scottish Office.
We have suffered often in the borders from an apparent wealth and an apparent lack of the headline figures such as high unemployment that might make us eligible for support. The thoughtful proposal by the local council in partnership with the enterprise company and others highlights the fact that the problem with unemployment figures is that they do not take any account of the many people who leave the area. Indeed, too many people may be forced to leave our part of the country.
Just a short trip—the Minister may have made it this week—into the top end of Galashiels from Edinburgh reveals that almost every third house is for sale. People do not hang around to be unemployed in the borders. Other factors, such as our very low income per head and our very low numbers of young people, should be taken into account when the assessment for assisted area status is made.
The Minister will be familiar with our view from deputations that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and I have brought to him about the future of European Union structural funds. When we met recently at Dover house, he encouraged us

to go away and pull together the different parties involved in the bid for objective 2 status. I can happily report to the Minister that, only this week, we had a meeting at the Scottish Borders tourist board headquarters in the borders of all the main parties. We shall meet on a monthly basis from now until the announcement is made about the future.
We are committed to ensuring that we produce a co-ordinated response which will demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the borders deserve to be considered properly within the objective 2 category, and at the very least are eligible for the safety net proposed by the European Commission.
When we get beyond medium-term initiatives, we have to look at the long-term problems. Too often in the past, people in the borders have identified many of our problems, be it poor roads or the lack of a railway, yet previous Administrations have chosen to ignore them, and have never prioritised them. We hope that the Government will not repeat their mistakes.
We welcome the fact that, over the summer and the past few months, a high-level working party sponsored by the Scottish Office and led by a senior Scottish Office civil servant has been looking at the various problems in the borders. We hope that the Minister will be able to tell us, if not this evening then soon, when we might expect an interim announcement from that working party as it draws together its first conclusions and reports to the Secretary of State.
We hope that it will not finish quickly, meaning that the problems of the borders are quietly shelved, and Government initiatives move on to other areas. We hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that there will be a continuing focus for that group, and that there will be evidence of the joined-up thinking to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred in Government Departments for some time to come.
I want to pay particular attention to the case of Viasystems, the electronics company that recently announced it would close with the loss of 1,000 jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire pointed out, although those jobs are primarily situated in my constituency, in Selkirk and Galashiels, the effect of their loss will be felt across the borders. There is a real sense of shock that something as horrific as that is to hit the local area. In many cases, people have put 30 hard years of their life into the company, which was highly profitable and had a committed and productive work force, yet their commitment, productivity and hard work have been betrayed by the management in St. Louis.
During the summer, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and I visited St. Louis, and put the case to the management for continuing with the Viasystems plants in the borders, but our appeal fell on deaf ears. It was not that we made an emotional case; our case was based on hard financial realities. In the first six months of this year, Viasystems' plants in the borders made a profit, by the company's own definition, of £2 million. The company makes an estimate of earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation; as an accountant, I could get very excited about all that, but suffice it to say that the company chooses in all its corporate releases to concentrate on that operational measure.


As I said, in the first six months of this year, the profit made by the company's own measure was £2 million, so it is a disgrace that the company has argued publicly that it was losing money in the borders. The only way in which the company could begin to portray the borders facilities as losing money is by allocating some interest charges from an Italian subsidiary, Zincocelere, that has absolutely nothing to do with the borders; by attributing to the operational performance of the facility –200,000 associated with early redundancies this year; and—something which sticks in the throats of many in the borders—by allocating nearly £100,000 of fees paid to the financiers Hicks, Muse, Tate and Furst, who put up the money that backs the Viasystems shareholders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and I have often called for a public inquiry into the Government assistance given to the corporation. When we saw the Secretary of State a few days ago, he promised once again to look at the matter. We hope that the documents surrounding the Viasystems case will be put into the public domain, and that all the efforts of local trade unionists and the people working in the factory to transfer work from the borders to other plants will be exposed. Only then will we have a true picture of what Viasystems has been up to.
Collectively, we have painted a bleak picture of what is happening in the borders, and I believe that it is a fair portrayal. However, we would all agree that we must not talk down our part of Scotland and northern England. There is still a lot in the borders and in north Northumberland to encourage people to stay in the area, but we need some encouragement from the Government to show that they share our commitment and the commitment of the people of the borders and north Northumberland to get through these terrible difficulties and move on to a more optimistic future.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on instigating this debate, and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) for joining him in raising the important issue of the economic crisis in the borders and the question of economic development in that area and in north Northumberland. They have described the difficulties faced by the area most eloquently and pungently. Thanks to their previous representations and those of the local communities, which has resulted in a large postbag, the Government are very much aware of the problems.
I assure the House of the Government's continuing commitment to the borders and their awareness of the economic difficulties that the area faces. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland visited the borders on 2 and 3 November to hear at first hand about the problems and about the plans to strengthen the local economy. I have just returned from a visit to the borders, where I spoke to local people about their concerns, and about ways to improve the economic situation in the area.
There can be no doubt that the jobs lost at Dawson International and Viasystems mean that the area is facing difficult times. I fully sympathise with those made

redundant by both firms, and I know that many small businesses are concerned that their own future is uncertain as a result.
I can assure the House that the Government did everything possible to save the jobs that have been lost. In particular, my noble Friend Lord Macdonald tried repeatedly to engage Viasystems in discussions about securing the future of the Galashiels and Selkirk plants, but, sadly, the company was not interested. I note that hon. Members are in discussion with the Secretary of State about the background to those events, and I am sure that those discussions will continue.
On 2 July, the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), announced the Government's initial response to the job losses at Dawson International and the difficulties at Viasystems. The package included further funding of £1 million for Scottish Borders Enterprise, and the establishment of a rural inward investment team by Locate in Scotland to try to help areas such as the borders.
The Employment Service also moved quickly to establish rapid reaction teams when the closure of the Viasystems plants was announced. Those teams have been working hard to provide advice and assistance to those facing redundancy, and so far they have been successful in securing employment for 50 former Viasystems employees, and more than 900 have been put forward to prospective employers by the Employment Service. I also understand that 70 more former Viasystems employees have also found jobs without using the services of the rapid reaction teams.
Those initial actions show the seriousness of the Government's reaction to developments in the borders. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked that the Government stand ready to help Scottish Borders council in various projects that it is trying to develop. I can tell him that we stand ready to grant additional capital consent to the council for a specific project that is currently under discussion, if the company involved decides to go ahead with a proposed expansion.
The Government are very aware of the need to work in partnership with the local authority and the local enterprise company to deal with the economic problems in the area, not only immediately but in the longer term. At the end of August, my noble Friend the Minister who has responsibility for business and industry announced the establishment of the borders working party, which is chaired by a senior official in the Scottish Office, and is building on the useful work that the council and Scottish Borders Enterprise have done to try to deal with the problems in the area.
Although the core membership of the working party is made up of officials from the Scottish Office, Scottish Borders Enterprise and the council, the working party is also drawing on the experience and expertise of other local bodies as necessary.
The working party has met three times so far—most recently last week—and is developing initiatives to address short-term and longer-term economic problems. I can assure hon. Members that the working party is very aware of the need to press ahead with its work, and that it is doing so.
Hon. Members asked for details of an action plan for economic regeneration in the borders. I am sure that they will appreciate that some of the opportunities being


pursued by the working party will inevitably take time to develop, and of course many of them are also commercially confidential at this stage, so I cannot give any details to the House without endangering the projects.
I realise that, because of the need for commercial confidentiality, it may appear to people in the borders that not much is happening, and that that must be frustrating, but I can assure them that the members of the working party are pursuing any opportunity that has a realistic chance of bringing new investment to the borders.
There is, in particular, a clear need to broaden the company and sectoral base of the borders to promote longer-term sustainability. To that end, the working party will be drawing on work in progress on an economic strategy for the longer-term future of the borders and, separately, on training needs.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale asked when that interim report would be available. It is hoped that the borders working party will produce an interim report on its work around the end of this month. I hope very much that it will include some positive news for the area, as well as outlining a strategy for tackling the long-term economic challenges facing the area. We are committed to our on-going support for the work of the working party.
Hon. Members also asked about assisted area status for the borders. As they will know, the existing pattern of assisted areas across Great Britain is currently under review. The Government have invited views from a wide range of bodies, including local authorities, local enterprise companies and business, on the factors that should be taken into account in selecting areas for a new assisted areas map that will come into effect from January 2000.
I am aware that the Scottish Borders council has responded to that consultation exercise, pointing out the problems facing the area, and putting forward its case for priority when the new map is drawn up. I am sure that the House will appreciate that I cannot comment on the merits of individual areas before the review is completed, but it is clear that the present economic difficulties in the borders will demand serious consideration when decisions are taken on the coverage of the new map.
Hon. Members also raised the concerns of people in the borders about continued access to European structural funds—which was also the subject of our recent meeting. Those concerns were also raised with me yesterday in the borders, and I have heard similar concerns expressed in many other areas across Scotland. The Government's priority is a wider European Union, offering new business opportunities to firms in the United Kingdom, and I hope that borders firms will be at the forefront of those taking advantage of these opportunities.
To achieve a wider European Union, it is important to recognise the needs of acceding states, and balance the benefits brought by a wider union with the needs of areas within the United Kingdom, such as the borders. The safety net proposal to limit to one third the reduction in the population eligible for the new objective 2 compared with the current United Kingdom objective 2 and 5b eligibility will help us to balance those needs.
I have been impressed and encouraged by the collective and corporate approach taken by Scottish agencies, including local authorities, in making Scotland's case to

the Commission. We will continue to press hard in Brussels to make sure that all the relevant parts of Scotland have the best chance of securing future European structural funds. I can also give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks about investigating any potential underspend under objective 5b, although he will acknowledge that that potential will remain uncertain in the near future.
The Government recognise the particular difficulties that rural areas face in attracting inward investment, and that is why we decided to set up a rural inward investment team within Locate in Scotland. The team's role will be to seek out and pursue opportunities for inward investment projects that might be particularly suitable for location in rural areas.
Locate in Scotland will be able to do only a limited amount at its own hand, and will rely heavily on the trust, co-operation and creative approach of local agencies. It will also look to the local enterprise companies for much of its information on genuine local strengths. I know that members of the team have already had initial meetings with the chief executive of Scottish Borders Enterprise. Although I hope that the team will be successful in attracting more investment to rural areas, obviously its task will not be easy, and it would be wrong to expect over-dramatic results initially.
Hon. Members kindly mentioned last week's announcement of Government approval for the new A7 bypass in Hawick. The scheme will transfer traffic, which passes through the town when travelling along the A7, on to a new inner relief road. The scheme represents another example of strong partnership between the Scottish Office and Scottish Borders council, which will share the costs of the relief road. Obviously, the bypass will boost the economic potential of Hawick, but it will also benefit the borders as a whole by improving travelling times on the A7.
Mention was made of the potential for rail developments in the borders. When I was in the borders recently, I heard representations about the reopening of the Waverley line through the borders. I recognise that that project is widely supported by many throughout the area. I am aware of the plans promoted by Borders Future Transport for the line to be reinstated in three phases. The first phase is a freight-only line, and is being taken forward by means of private legislation procedure. Similar parliamentary powers will be need for the other phases.
The Scottish Office is in regular contact with Borders Future Transport about phase 1. Subject to parliamentary consideration, it is anticipated that Borders Future Transport will submit a formal application for freight facilities grant assistance to the Scottish Office. When that is done, it will be given every consideration.
The Scottish Office can also consider providing help for major transport improvements under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968, subject to the availability of funds.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed expressed concern about the difficulties of the Scottish borders, and pointed out that those difficulties were shared by north Northumberland. I am aware that economic changes seldom respect administrative boundaries. I am also aware that the right hon. Gentleman is a member of the Berwick regeneration task force, which brings together local interests with the Government office for the north-east, and a


representative of Scottish borders council. It is important that that partnership stretches across the border to ensure an integrated approach, and I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he sought on co-operation with Scottish agencies as appropriate.
The right hon. Member mentioned the Al. He knows that it is being considered as part of the strategic roads review, and he will therefore understand that I can say nothing that might anticipate the review's outcome.
I hope that I have been able to convey the Government's determination to tackle the issues raised tonight by working in partnership with Scottish Borders

council, with Scottish Borders Enterprise, with local businesses and—most important—with the local people. I hope that the steps outlined tonight and those in the pipeline from the working party will prove successful in promoting economic regeneration so that we have a long-term and thriving business sector in the borders; and that that can form the basis of long-term thriving communities in the borders and in north Northumberland.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.